Time: Wed Oct 30 20:27:01 1996
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: Traveling is a right [3/7]
Cc:
Bcc: liberty lists
<snip>
>--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
>From: autarchic
>To: libertylaw@www.ultimate.org
>Subject: Traveling is a right [3/7]
>Date: Wed, 30 Oct 1996 10:20:15 EST
>Message-ID: <19961030.141739.4327.16.autarchic@juno.com>
>
> >>> Part 3 of 7...
>
> attach upon every person immediately upon his birth in the
> kings dominion, and even upon a slave the instant he lands
> within the same. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> 1 Chitty Pr. 32.
>
> 23.3 "RIGHT" -- A legal "RIGHT," a constitutional
> "RIGHT" means a "RIGHT" protected by the law, by the
> constitution, but government does not create the idea of
> "RIGHT" or original "RIGHTS"; it acknowledges them. . . .
> (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961.
>
> 23.4 Absolute "RIGHT" -- Without any condition or
> incumbrance as an absolute bond, simplex obligatio, in
> distinction from a conditional bond; an absolute estate, one
> that is free from all manner of conditions or incumbrance. A
> rule is said to be absolute when, on the hearing, it is
> confirmed. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
>
> 23.5 Unalienable -- A word denoting the condition of
> those things, the property in which cannot be lawfully
> transferred from one person to another.
> See:
> Bouvier's Law Dictionary.
>
>24. It shows from these definitions that the State has an
>obligation to acknowledge the "RIGHTS" of this Sovereign to travel on
>the streets or highways in North Carolina. Further, the State has the
>duty to refrain from interfering with this "RIGHT" and to protect this
>"RIGHT" and to enforce the claim of this Sovereign to it.
>25. Now if this Sovereign has the absolute "RIGHT" to move about
>on the streets or highways, does that "RIGHT" include the "RIGHT" to
>travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways? The Supreme Court of
>the State of Texas has made comments that are an appropriate response
>to this question.
>
> 25.1 Property in a thing consists not merely in its
> ownership and possession, but in the unrestricted "RIGHT" of
> use, enjoyment and disposal. Anything which destroys any of
> these elements of property, to that extent destroys the
> property itself. The substantial value of property lies in
> its use. If the "RIGHT" of use be denied, the value of the
> property is annihilated and ownership is rendered a barren
> "RIGHT." Therefore, a law which forbids the use of a certain
> kind of property, strips it of an essential attribute and in
> actual result proscribes its ownership. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Spann v. City of Dallas, 235 S.W. 513.
>
>26. These words of the Supreme Court of Texas are of particular
>importance in Idaho because the Idaho Supreme Court quoted the Supreme
>Court of Texas and used these exact words in rendering its decision in
>the case of O'Conner v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37. The Supreme Court
>of Texas went on to say further;
>
> 26.1 To secure their property was one of the great ends
> for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire
> and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the
> owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural
> "RIGHT." It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It
> existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen's natural
> liberty--an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as
> inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS." (Emphasis
> added).
> See:
> Spann supra.
>
>27. PROPERTY
>
> 27.1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines;
>
> 27.1.1 Property -- The ownership of property implies its
> use in the prosecution of any legitimate business which is
> not a nuisance in itself.
> See:
> In re Hong Wah, 82 Fed. 623.
>
>28. The United States Supreme Court states:
>
> 28.1 The Federal Constitution and laws passed within
> its authority are by the express terms of that instrument
> made the supreme law of the land. The Fourteenth Amendment
> protects life, liberty, and property from invasion by the
> States without due process of law.
>
> 28.2 Property is more than the mere thing which a
> person owns. It is elementary that it includes the "RIGHT"
> to acquire, use and dispose of it. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Buchanan v. Warley 245 U.S. 60, 74.
>
>29. These authorities point out that the "RIGHT" to own property
>includes the "RIGHT" to use it. The reasonable use of an automobile is
>to travel upon the streets or highways on which this Sovereign has an
>absolute "RIGHT" to use for the purposes of travel. The definitions in
>Title 49 Chapter 3 of the Idaho Code positively declare the "RIGHT" of
>this Sovereign to travel in a vehicle upon the streets or highways in
>Idaho.
>30. MOTOR VEHICLE OR VEHICLE?
>
> 30.1 Motor Vehicle -- Motor vehicle means a vehicle
> which is self-propelled or which is propelled by electric
> power obtained from overhead trolley wires, but not operated
> upon rails.
> See:
> Idaho Code 49-301 (6)
>
> 30.2 Vehicle -- Vehicle means a device in, upon, or by
> which any person or property is or may be transported or
> drawn upon a public highway, excepting devices moved by
> human power or horse drawn or used exclusively upon
> stationary rails or tracks.
> See:
> Idaho Code 49-301 (14)
>
> 30.3 Street or Highway -- Street or Highway means the
> entire width between property lines of every way or place of
> whatever nature when any part thereof is open to the use of
> the public, as a matter of "RIGHT," for purposes of
> vehicular traffic. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Idaho Code 49-301 (13).
>
> 30.4 The term "Motor Vehicle" may be so used as to
> include only those self-propelled vehicles which are used on
> highways primarily for purposes of "transporting" persons
> and property from place to place. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> 60 Corpus Juris Secundum 1, Page 148;
> Ferrante Equipment Co. v. Foley Machinery Co., N.J., 231
> A.2d 208, 211, 49 N.J. 432.
>
> 30.5 It seems obvious that the entire Motor
> Transportation Code and the definition of motor vehicle are
> not intended to be applicable to all motor vehicles but only
> to those having a connection with the "transportation" of
> persons or property. (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Rogers Construction Co. v. Hill, Or., 384 P.2d 219, 222, 235
> Or. 352.
>
> 30.6 "Motor vehicle" means a vehicle, machine, tractor,
> trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical
> power and used on a highway in "transportation," or a
> combination determined by the Commission, but does not
> include a vehicle, locomotive, or car operated only on a
> rail, or a trolley bus operated by electric power from a
> fixed overhead wire, and providing local passenger
> "transportation" similar to street-railway service.
> (Emphasis added).
> See:
> Transportation, Title 49, U.S.C.A. 10102 (17).
>
> The Constitutions of the United States and the State of
>North Carolina guarantees this Sovereign the "RIGHT" to own property.
>The Supreme Courts of North Carolina and Texas have affirmed that the
>"RIGHT" to own property includes the "RIGHT" to use it while its use
>harms nobody. If that property is an automobile, it is included in the
>definitions of vehicle and motor vehicle in the Idaho Code Title 49
>Chapter 3. And in the same Idaho Code Chapter, streets or highways are
>defined as the place where vehicles are used by the public as a matter
>of "RIGHT." Thus it shows that this Sovereign has the "RIGHT" to use a
>vehicle on the streets or highways in North Carolina.
>31. Now if this Sovereign has the "RIGHT" to use a vehicle on
>the streets or highways in North Carolina, to what extent can the
>State of North Carolina regulate or diminish that "RIGHT?" There are
>some who maintain that specific performance is required of every
>Sovereign who uses a vehicle upon the streets or highways in North
>Carolina. Let us examine this contention in detail.
> CONTRACT?
>32. Specific performance is a term used to designate an action
>in equity in which a party to a contract asks the court to order the
>other party to carry out the contract which he has failed or refused
>to perform. Thus, if specific performance is expected, a contract must
>exist. The question then becomes: What are the terms of the contract
>and when was it executed and by whom? Since specific performance seems
>expected of every user of a vehicle on the streets or highways in
>North Carolina, the user of a vehicle seems one of the parties to the
>supposed contract. And since the State seems the party demanding
>specific performance, the State is the other party to the contract. So
>the supposed contract exists between the user of a vehicle and the
>State of North Carolina. When was this contract executed and what are
>its' terms? Some contend that when a user of a vehicle avails himself
>of the "privilege" of driving on public thoroughfares that he enters a
>contract with the State that requires him to abide with all the laws
>in the North Carolina General Statutes. Others contend that the
>contract is executed when a driver's license is obtained. We need now
>to figure out what is a contract.
>33. A contract may be defined as an agreement enforceable in
>court between two or more parties, for a sufficient consideration to
>do or not to do some specified thing or things. Thus, a contract has
>four essential features:
>
> >>> Continued to next message...
>--------- End forwarded message ----------
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail