LICENSING OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS PROHIBITED
Free people do not ask to exercise their rights. If you have a right no permission is needed to exercise or enjoy it, if a right is not being recognized you demand your rights, you do not ask.
Demand. The assertion of a legal right; a legal obligation asserted in the courts. An imperative request preferred by one person to another, under a claim of right, requiring the latter to do or yield something or to abstain from some act. A debt or an amount due. An asking with authority, claiming or challenging as due. Smith v. Municipal Court of Glendale Judicial Dist., Los Angeles County, 176 Cal.App.2d 534, 334 P.2d 931. Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 386
The cases below are from the U.S. Supreme court, other than the case of Price v. Barr, F.Supp.3d (2021) which is from the U.S. Dist. Court Wa. D.C. and Sherar v. Cullen 481 F.2d 945 (1973) a case from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
"This regime is difficult to square with the longstanding rule that the government may not “impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution,”... Murdock v. Com. of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292 (1943)" Price v. Barr, F.Supp.3d (2021) U.S. Dist. Court Wa. D.C.
"In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
As we can see in the case above the U.S. Supreme Court states that the right to travel is a 'basic right under the Constitution" which means that it is a constitutionally protected right. There is not one right protected under the U.S. Constitution which may be licensed and taxed as a prerequisite before exercising. The right to travel has not been overturned, therefore the people cannot be charged a license tax for the exercise/use of such right, which is well settled law.
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." Murdock v. Com. of Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943) This case has not been overturned and is the law of the land in all the states, last time we checked, this case has been cited 872 times by other courts around the U.S. and most recently cited in Price v. Barr, F.Supp.3d (2021) making it the 873rd time it was cited. The holding of the Murdock case is not debatable, it is well settled law binding on all the courts of the U.S.A. as super precedent. Additionally "a State cannot foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere labels." NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963)
Also consider this, since all constitutionally protected rights by law are protected from issuing licenses for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, why is the right to travel the apparent exception to the law? There is no exception. If one right can be taxed, they all can be taxed...the power to tax is the power to destroy see M'Culloch v. State, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).
“But if the State can tax a railroad passenger one dollar, it can tax him one thousand dollars. If one State can do this, so can every other State.” Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867)
“The conclusion that the right of free movement is a right of national citizenship stands on firm historical ground. If a state tax on that movement, as in the Crandall case, is invalid, a fortiori a state statute which obstructs or in substance prevents that movement must fall.” Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)
"If the right of passing through a State by a citizen of the United States is one guaranteed to him by the Constitution, it must be as sacred from State taxation"...Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867)
License tax. A license, strictly so-called, imposed in exercise of the ordinary police power of the state, or a tax, laid in the exercise of the power of taxation. State v. Commercial Loan Co., 251 Ala. 672, 38 So.2d 571, 573. See license fee or tax, Black's Law Dictionary 4th Ed. page 1070
In Shapiro v. Thompson, we clearly see that the right to travel is in fact a right, recognized by the Court stated as 'a basic right under the constitution' which is a constitutionally protected right. And then in the case below we see: "Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right... may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right." Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
"Ordinance which makes peaceful enjoyment of freedoms guaranteed by Constitution contingent upon uncontrolled will of an official, as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in official's discretion, is an unconstitutional censorship or private restraint upon enjoyment of such freedoms" Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, is not about a driver's licensing case/controversy but the principle point in the case is that constitutionally protected rights cannot be licensed whether it's free speech, right to associate and assemble or the right to travel. There can be some degree of regulation upon some rights this is true, at the same time no government, whether federal, state, or local can license a right of the people, this is basic constitutional law. Public vehicular travelers must abide by the common law of the state found in case law (part of that includes following the rules of the road), also explicitly stated in the prima facie code in Washington State in RCW 46.61 RULES OF THE ROAD. At all times private travelers are bound by the state’s criminal laws. The Washington state session laws are in accord with the law of the state which is the common law. The common law is the rule of decision throughout the nation and in Washington State see WASHINGTON STATE RULES OF COURT CrR 1.1 SCOPE, and CIVIL PROCEDURE RCW 4.04.010 Extent to which common law prevails.
In Sherar v. Cullen 481 F.2d 945 (1973) the 9th Cir. Court of Appeals held that an individual cannot be sanctioned or penalized for exercising his or her constitutional rights.
"Federal law is as much the law of the several states as are laws passed by their legislatures; federal and state law together form one system of jurisprudence, which constitutes law of the land for the state." Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (2009)
"But the power of the state in that respect is not unlimited, and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require the relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, in like manner, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guaranties embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence." Frost v. Railroad Commission of State of Cal., 271 U.S. 583 (1926)
"the power to tax involves the power to destroy" U.S. v. Fresno County, 429 U.S. 452 (1977)
Copyright © 2024 Publicvehiculartravel.com - All Rights Reserved.
Free People Do Not Ask to Exercise Their Rights
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.