And, I find their usually the first to respond, and always with
heckles, assults, and slander.  It's as if their afraid somebody might
discocer their slavery and free them from their shackles.  One poster,
who goes by the name "The Real Bev", after making the typical personal
assaults, nailed their own coffin of ignorance closed by writing:

The Real Bev wrote:

None of these are Rights, but instead are just the facts of life.  Item
1 being a Law of Nature.  Items 2 thru 4 being needs.

Rights are NOT what others are obligated to provide you.  Instead,
Rights are what others are obligated to allow you.

Also, if it is reserved to the people, NO State shall infringe upon it
by Law either denying it or converting it to a privilege.  And, as I
have pointed out numerous times, the US Supreme Court has reserved to
the people the Right of Locomotion Ordinarily used for Personal Travel
on Public Right of Ways.  Public Highways are Public Right of Ways.
Therefore, State Driver Licensing Laws are indeed a Violation of our
Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public
Highways.

And, their having control over our Public Education system provides
them the opportunity to turn out a bumper crop of those very same
Americans you spoke of above, being totally Ignorant of the nature of
Rights, and making their transgressions of the Constitution that much
easier to get away with.

Most of the people who today call them selves Americans are the same
people who have never read the constitution and have no concept of
rights "... reserved to the states or to the people..."  Anything NOT
specifically listed in the constitution as something the feds have
control over is a states right and if it's not listed as a states
rights, it's the citizens right.  The legislatures and courts have
systematically pissed all over the constitution.

Apparently, this site is no longer carrying this particular story.  Not
that I doubt the story existed.

Take note above of the use of the word "removing".  Often, in denying
our Right to remove ourselves from one place to another, people suggest
one can always take a bus or a taxi.  But, we don't have a Right to BE
REMOVED.  Instead, we have a Right to REMOVE OURSELF.  We have the
Right to TRAVEL.  We DO NOT have a Right to be TRANSPORTED.  If such a
Right existed, others would be legally obligated to TRANSPORT us to
where ever our inclination choose.

Additionally, such TRANSPORTS are generally Commercial entities, which
DO NOT have a Right to even exist to begin with, and may exist only by
the permission of the State.  It is nonsensical to say we have a Right
to something which itself doesn't even have a Right to exist.

Imagine you owned some property with roads on it.  Imagine you hired
someone to maintain those roads for you.  Now, Imagine the person you
hired begin to deny you the use of your own roads, forcing you to be
subjected to using a Commercial Transport Service which this person you
hired give his permission to use your roads.  You would, or should, be
outraged.

Also, take note of the phrase: "without imprisonment or restraint
unless by due process of law."

Due Process of law is the Right to be charged of a crime, summoned to
court, to receive an orderly proceeding, confronting your accuser,
having the choice between a Judge or Jury, and to be assumed Innocent
until proven guilty.  What this means is that Rights may not be denied
of everyone merely by Legislation, but that a particular individual
must be charged with a crime, and found guilty, before that particular
individual may be denied of a Right.

Here's more evidence of the RIGHT..

http://www.sagebrushnews.com/wise.htm

A Word To The Wise

Further enlightenment about the right to travel (drive)

By Jude Vollendorf, for the Sagebrush News


Last issue I talked about the right to drive, or travel, at some
length. But in conversations with friends (and foes) it has become
clear that people in general believe the fiction the state has
promulgated since the turn of the century—that travel on the roads in
a motor vehicle is a privilege. A privilege, of course, can be denied
at will. And the state has increasingly denied individuals the right
to travel for reasons further and further afield from regulating
traffic and public safety.
    So I thought this time I would let the courts speak on the issue
and see if some understanding can be achieved by all sovereign
Citizens of the state of Oregon. There are many more quotes and cases
than what are listed here, but for space considerations these will
have to do.

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go
where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of
others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens.
The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to
transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or
automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or
prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this
Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions,
travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public
places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner,
neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be
protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

"The right to travel is an unconditional right which cannot be
conditioned by the legislature."

Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S.  330, 341 (1972)

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing
situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's
inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by
due process of law."

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;

Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution, Pg. 777

"A right which is free and open to all is not the subject of
license."-- Freebourgh v. Dawson 274 F 420.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to
travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary
course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated
in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor
Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.

("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights,
signs, etc.)

It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states
have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license),
and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are
other court decisions that expound the same facts:

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen
cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th
Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"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.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place
to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through
the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment
and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96
App DC 287, 293.

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted
into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.

"...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the
plenary control of the streets and highways in the exercise of its
police power (see police power, infra.), may absolutely prohibit the
use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private
business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction
between the ordinary Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the
usual way and the use of the streets as a place of business or a main
instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a common
Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former, the
legislative power is confined to regulation, as to the latter; it is
plenary and extends even to absolute prohibition. Since the use of the
streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its business as such
is not a right but a mere license of privilege."

Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this
exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not
extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For
the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways
of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or
withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

“The right to travel is implicated when a statute actually deters such
travel, when impeding travel is its primary objective, or when it uses
any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that
right.

Mitchell v. Steffen, 504 N.W.2d 198, 200 (Minn. 1993) (citing Attorney
Gen. v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898, 903, 106 S. Ct. 2317, 2320 (1986)),
cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1081 (1994)..

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Ninth
Amendment to the Constitution of the united States of America.

Is it really so difficult to shake off the harness?  Clearly, in a knee
jerk fashon, you fealt the need to try to humiliate me.  But, for who's
benefit, for what purpose, and in who's eyes?  I present you with
evidence of my claim, you offer no counter evidence of any sort, then
come off with some cutesy limerick!  Are you under the impression you
proved anything to anybody, other than the ability to plagerize cutesy
limericks?

You have lived in this harness for so long, you are afraid to live
without it, you are afraid to consider living without it, and to avoid
doing that, you are afraid to even admit the harness exists!  And, in
your case, plagiarizing cutesy limericks is a defense mechanism,
protecting you from unwanted thought and observations.

You probably wouldn't dare follow it, but this is a link to a site
where the 1937 Detroit Michigan Driver's Handbook is shown.  At the
time of the publishing of this handbook, "driving" was still openly
admitted by Cities and States as a Right.
http://www.us-highways.com/trtdr00.htm

Let's try another approach at this.  Surely you would have to admit our
Constitution recognizes our Personal Right to Liberty.  And, surely you
would have to admit that this implies a Personal Right to Travel on
Public Highways, Roads, Paths, and other Public Right of Ways.  If you
can't admit even this, then I can only think you humiliate yourself.

Assuming you admit we have the Personal Right to Travel on our Public
Highways, in what manner should we Travel on them other than the
Ordinary (the usual) manner of Travel on them?  Should we be limited to
only extraordinary manners of Travel on them, which in turn may be, and
are in many places, prohibited because they obstruct the ordinary
manner of Travel?

And, how can you have a Right to something extraordinary which can be
prohibited because it obstructs the ordinary?  You can't!  If there
must be a choice between the Ordinary manner of Travel and a certain
extraordinary manner of Travel, the Right must always go with the
Ordinary manner of Travel.

If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, Roads, Paths and
other Public Right of Ways, then you have the Right to Travel on Public
Highways, and you have the Right to Travel on Public Roads, and you
have the Right to Travel on Public Paths, and you have the Right to
Travel on other Public Right of Ways.

If you have the Right to Travel on Public Highways, then, formost, you
have the Right to Travel on them in the manner Ordinarly used on them.
The Ordinary manner yesterday was the Ordinary manner yesterday.  The
Ordinary manner today is the Ordinary manner today.  The Ordinary
manner tomorrow will be the Ordinary manner tomorrow.

We have the Right to the Ordinary manner of Travel used on any
particular stretch of Public Highway, Road, Path or other Public Right
of Way at any particular time.

snip whine

If wishes were fishes, you sure would have a nice
dinner, huh?

The US Supreme Court has recognized our Right of Locomotion:

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=179&invol=270#274

Examine this carefully.  This is YOUR Right.  You NEED to Understand
EXACTLY WHAT is your Right.

Note: "and the right, ordinarly"

Which Right?  "of locomotion", "to remove from one place to another",
"of personal liberty", "of free transit".  AKA: Personal Travel.

How?  "ordinarly".

Where?  "from or through the territory of any state".  AKA: Public
Property.

We have the Right of Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on
Public Property.

Even expressed in this form, from experience debating this issue, there
will be those who still don't understand what their Right is.

Let me rephrase it.  On any particular stretch of Public Property, you
have a Right to use WHATEVER Locomotion is Ordinarly used on that
stretch.

On Public Sidewalks, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Walking, and we
have a Right to Walk on Public Sidewalks.

On Public Biketrails, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is Bikes, and we
have a Right to Bike on Public Biketrails.

What is the Locomotion Ordinarly used for Personal Travel on our Public
Highways?

It is, of course, the Automobile.

On Public Highways, the Locomotion Ordinarly used is the Auto, and we
have a Right to use Autos on Public Highways.