by Marvin J. Ramirez
Marvin Ramirez
(This is the first part of a series of three parts)
In our previous edition editorial, I wrote about the constitutional rights provided by a good number of U.S. court decisions to driving, and suggested in a letter sent to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and several media organizations to look into those decisions so they can understand, that every individual in the United States has the right to use the U.S. highways and that no state shall infringe that right by demanding a driver’s license.
It means that driving is not a privilege, as interpreted by the California Department of Motor Vehicles, rather it is a right.
My goal in writing the letter and emailing those court decision was to help our city officials draft a local legislation that would permit those undocumented drivers, to be able to take a driving test at an accredited driving/traffic school, and present it to the city for the issuance of a driving permit within the City and County of San Francisco limits.
This would stop the San Francisco Police Department Motorcycle Unit to continue confiscating their cars for not having a driver’s license, and it would bring the city extra revenues instead of receiving revenues from the confiscation of the cars from poor families.
I hope the following decisions will aid the Board and the citizenry, to understand the meaning of the laws and be able to claim justice for themselves.
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
by Jack McLamb
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.
Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license.
Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: “The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution.
CASE #3: “The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.” Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: “The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right.” Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.
Government — in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question — is restricting, and therefore violating, the people’s common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject?
Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful.
The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. CONTINUES NEXT WEEK.
