Oh, there's plenty of case law (and a dismissal by a trial court isn't case law). But the real case law doesn't say wat you want. Let’s see what the courts have really said on the subject: [I] The U. S. Supreme Court has expressly rules that IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL FOR STATES to enact laws requiring driver's licenses, motor vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility for any operation of an automobile or other motor vehicle on public roads (without regard to whether that operation is, or is not, commercial): [A] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require driver's licenses, and/or vehicle registration for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. See John Hendrick v. State of Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915), at 622 (emphasis added): "...a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states..." [B] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require proof of financial responsibility for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. See Frank Kane v. State of New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 37 S.Ct. 30, 61 L.Ed. 222 (1916). at 167: "...The power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways has been recently considered by this court and broadly sustained. It extends to nonresidents as well as to residents...." [C] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require driver's licenses, and/or vehicle registration for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941), at 36 (emphasis added): "....The UNIVERSAL practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process....." [II] Courts have consistently ruled that the right to travel does not include a right to operate an automobile or other motor vehicle without complying with state laws requiring driver's licenses, car registration and/or proof of financial responsibility. [1] City of Mt. Vernon v. Young, 2006 Ohio 3319 (Ohio App., 2006), slip op. at 14: "...'Driving a motor vehicle on a public roadway is only one form of travel. [the requirement for a valid driver's license] does not prevent Appellant from engaging in interstate or intrastate travel by walking, running, taking a bus, a train, a bicycle or an airplane. Appellant is free to go anywhere he wishes. He is merely restricted to do so by utilizing forms of travel in which he is not the driver of a motor vehicle' State v. Stuber, Third Dist. No. 1-02-13, 2002-Ohio-3394 at ¶11...." [2] State v. Garvin, 945 A.2d 821 (R.I., 2008), at 823: "..."... defendant does not have a fundamental right to unregulated travel by automobile within this state. "[T]his [C]ourt has expressly ruled that the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways is not a fundamental right." Allard v. Department of Transportation, 609 A.2d 930, 937 (R.I.1992) (citing Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 455 n. 9, 374 A.2d 791, 794 n. 9 (1977))...." [3] City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945, 43 Wn.App. 273 (Wash. App., 1986) at 276: "...the right to a particular mode of travel is no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 3 See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941). In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, at 314 U.S. 36, 62 S.Ct. 26-27: "...Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process...." [4] State v. Skurdal, 767 P.2d 304, 235 Mont. 291 (Mont. Supreme Court, 1988), at 307: "...one's ability to travel on public highways is always subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power.Gordon v. State (1985), 108 Idaho 178, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193, appeal dismissed, 474 U.S. 803, 106 S.Ct. 874, 88 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986)...." [III] No one has been able to cite a Supreme Court case which expressly ruled (1) that any right to travel includes a right to use an automobile or other motor vehicle (non-commercially) on public roads without satisfying state laws requiring a driver's license, vehicle registration, or proof of financial responsibility; or (2) precludes States from regulating the non-commercial operation of an automobile or other motor vehicle.
@@larryc7209you can give these guy all the proof in the world. Cases, even traffic courts on video that show people using his arguments and losing in court , but they won’t believe any of it. They’re so brainwashed its impossible for them to see their arguments aren’t true
@@fiddletown2002 welp since you started with Hendrick... Copy and pasted with emphasis by me. The movement of MOTOR VEHICLES over highways being attended by constant and serious dangers to the public and ALSO BEING ABNORMALLY DESTRUCTIVE TO THE HIGHWAYS is a proper subject of police regulation by the State. In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a State may prescribe uniform regulations necessary for safety and order in respect to operation of motor vehicles on its highways including those moving in INTERSTATE COMMERCE. A reasonable graduated license fee on motor vehicles when imposed on those engaged in interstate commerce does not constitute a direct and material burden on such commerce and render the act imposing such fee void under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. A State may require registration of motor vehicles; and a reasonable license fee is not unconstitutional as denial of equal protection of the laws because graduated according to the horse power of the engine. SUCH A CLASSIFICATION IS REASONABLE. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE STATES ACTION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE INQUIRY IN SO FAR AS IT AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress. A State which, at its own expense, furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce may exact compensation therefor; and if the charges are reasonable and uniform they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. THE ACTION OF THE STATE IN SUCH RESPECT MUST BE TREATED AS CORRECT UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS MADE TO APPEAR. __________________
If, "a state may require registration and license fees is not unconstitutional as denial of equal protection of the laws because graduated according to the horsepower of the engine", please identify the other parties the laws protect.
This isn’t proof of anything lol. Even if this is real which I doubt guess what traffic charges get dismissed literally every day for no reason. That doesn’t mean any argument of “travel without license”. is correct
Oh, there's plenty of case law (and a dismissal by a trial court isn't case law). But the real case law doesn't say wat you want.
Let’s see what the courts have really said on the subject:
[I] The U. S. Supreme Court has expressly rules that IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL FOR STATES to enact laws requiring driver's licenses, motor vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility for any operation of an automobile or other motor vehicle on public roads (without regard to whether that operation is, or is not, commercial):
[A] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require driver's licenses, and/or vehicle registration for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. See John Hendrick v. State of Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915), at 622 (emphasis added):
"...a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states..."
[B] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require proof of financial responsibility for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. See Frank Kane v. State of New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 37 S.Ct. 30, 61 L.Ed. 222 (1916). at 167: "...The power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways has been recently considered by this court and broadly sustained. It extends to nonresidents as well as to residents...."
[C] As a matter of constitutional law it is permissible for States to require driver's licenses, and/or vehicle registration for the operation of automobiles and other motor vehicles on public roads. Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941), at 36 (emphasis added): "....The UNIVERSAL practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process....."
[II] Courts have consistently ruled that the right to travel does not include a right to operate an automobile or other motor vehicle without complying with state laws requiring driver's licenses, car registration and/or proof of financial responsibility.
[1] City of Mt. Vernon v. Young, 2006 Ohio 3319 (Ohio App., 2006), slip op. at 14:
"...'Driving a motor vehicle on a public roadway is only one form of travel. [the requirement for a valid driver's license] does not prevent Appellant from engaging in interstate or intrastate travel by walking, running, taking a bus, a train, a bicycle or an airplane. Appellant is free to go anywhere he wishes. He is merely restricted to do so by utilizing forms of travel in which he is not the driver of a motor vehicle' State v. Stuber, Third Dist. No. 1-02-13, 2002-Ohio-3394 at ¶11...."
[2] State v. Garvin, 945 A.2d 821 (R.I., 2008), at 823:
"..."... defendant does not have a fundamental right to unregulated travel by automobile within this state. "[T]his [C]ourt has expressly ruled that the right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways is not a fundamental right." Allard v. Department of Transportation, 609 A.2d 930, 937 (R.I.1992) (citing Berberian v. Petit, 118 R.I. 448, 455 n. 9, 374 A.2d 791, 794 n. 9 (1977))...."
[3] City of Spokane v. Port, 716 P.2d 945, 43 Wn.App. 273 (Wash. App., 1986) at 276:
"...the right to a particular mode of travel is no more than an aspect of the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. 3 See Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941). In Reitz, the United States Supreme Court examined the privilege to travel on our public streets and highways and concluded, at 314 U.S. 36, 62 S.Ct. 26-27: "...Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process...."
[4] State v. Skurdal, 767 P.2d 304, 235 Mont. 291 (Mont. Supreme Court, 1988), at 307: "...one's ability to travel on public highways is always subject to reasonable regulation by the state in the valid exercise of its police power.Gordon v. State (1985), 108 Idaho 178, 697 P.2d 1192, 1193, appeal dismissed, 474 U.S. 803, 106 S.Ct. 874, 88 L.Ed.2d 912 (1986)...."
[III] No one has been able to cite a Supreme Court case which expressly ruled (1) that any right to travel includes a right to use an automobile or other motor vehicle (non-commercially) on public roads without satisfying state laws requiring a driver's license, vehicle registration, or proof of financial responsibility; or (2) precludes States from regulating the non-commercial operation of an automobile or other motor vehicle.
@@fiddletown2002 that's because the supreme court doesn't want to let that cat outta the bag.
@@weytogoman you need a different hobby. This one isn't working out for you
@@larryc7209you can give these guy all the proof in the world. Cases, even traffic courts on video that show people using his arguments and losing in court , but they won’t believe any of it. They’re so brainwashed its impossible for them to see their arguments aren’t true
@@fiddletown2002 welp since you started with Hendrick...
Copy and pasted with emphasis by me.
The movement of MOTOR VEHICLES over highways being attended by constant and serious dangers to the public and ALSO BEING ABNORMALLY DESTRUCTIVE TO THE HIGHWAYS is a proper subject of police regulation by the State. In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a State may prescribe uniform regulations necessary for safety and order in respect to operation of motor vehicles on its highways including those moving in INTERSTATE COMMERCE. A reasonable graduated license fee on motor vehicles when imposed on those engaged in interstate commerce does not constitute a direct and material burden on such commerce and render the act imposing such fee void under the commerce clause of the Federal Constitution. A State may require registration of motor vehicles; and a reasonable license fee is not unconstitutional as denial of equal protection of the laws because graduated according to the horse power of the engine. SUCH A CLASSIFICATION IS REASONABLE. THE REASONABLENESS OF THE STATES ACTION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE INQUIRY IN SO FAR AS IT AFFECTS INTERSTATE COMMERCE, and in that regard it is likewise subordinate to the will of Congress. A State which, at its own expense, furnishes special facilities for the use of those engaged in interstate and intrastate commerce may exact compensation therefor; and if the charges are reasonable and uniform they constitute no burden on interstate commerce. THE ACTION OF THE STATE IN SUCH RESPECT MUST BE TREATED AS CORRECT UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS MADE TO APPEAR.
__________________
If, "a state may require registration and license fees is not unconstitutional as denial of equal protection of the laws because graduated according to the horsepower of the engine", please identify the other parties the laws protect.
This isn’t proof of anything lol. Even if this is real which I doubt guess what traffic charges get dismissed literally every day for no reason. That doesn’t mean any argument of “travel without license”. is correct