Driving vs. Traveling
Brought to you kind sir by the Supreme
Court and our beautiful U.S. Constitution.
were getting permission from the government
So what does the judges in the Supreme
for use on the public roads and highways for
Court have to say about this... since they are
commercial use.
the ones who judge law and who ALL other
This lead to a creative revenue stream
lower courts are inferior to?
My dear friends, since humans were
requiring a registration to be paid by these
This is not an easy struggle, but you can
created they were free to travel how they saw
divers for their vehicles to subsidize the extra
end up like several others before you, and go
fit. Likewise, Americans have shared in that
wear and tear on the public highways.
as you please without a license, registration,
same right since the dawn of our beautiful
country. Americans have always had the right
to travel freely and unencumbered from laws,
regulations, statues, and licensing.
HISTORY
Kindly, the government opened this up to
or insurance.

the general public to become 'drivers' by
"All citizens must be free to travel
"allowing" them to register their cars and get
throughout the United States uninhibited
driver's license if they choose.
by
"Then, through police misapplication, ticket
statutes,
rules,
and
regulations..." SHAPIRO
v.
THOMPSON 394 US 618
From the use of horse and buggy, to the
writing, and false slogans such as “Driving is
early Model 'T', Americans have never been
not a right, it is a privilege”, they have been
required to get "permission" to travel on the
able to get the general public to believe they
TRAVEL
public roads or highways when it was for
had to be licensed and registered. It's like an
HIGHWAYS and to transport his property
personal reasons. Has anything changed now
old wives' tale which has become widely
thereon, either by horse-drawn carriage OR
that you have zippy fast cars?
accepted. Even most cops (whose duty it is to
BY
know the law) don't know and don't care to
PRIVILEGE which the city may prohibit or
learn these laws...They just like to keep
permit
writing those tickets....Cha-Chingggg."
RIGHT." THOMPSON v. SMITH, 155 Va 367
Soon there were a lot of people on the
roads for commercial purposes. This resulted
in
people
lumbering
along transporting
generous loads on the roads with trucks and
trailers, because of this the government felt
the need to make laws and regulations to
protect the innocent citizens from the dangers
of this commercial traffic.
Following this, the government began
requiring commercial drivers to register and
obtain "licenses", basically this meant they
When you find yourself before a judge,
more than likely they will pretend that cases
against the driver's license does not even
or
they
will
say
"The RIGHT of
the
cases
for
previous Supreme Court ruling are too old...
don't fret, we have a bullet proof argument!
the
UPON
AUTOMOBILE,

CURRENT PROBLEM
exist

at
will, BUT
citizen TO
THE
IS
NOT
IS
A
PUBLIC
A
MERE
COMMON
"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

”If the state does convert your right
into a privilege and issue a license and
1
charge a fee for it, you can ignore the
Here is the dilemma, when the government
What the United States Supreme Court,
license and fee and engage in the right
started requiring the commercial vehicles to
the highest court in the land, says here is that
with
be registered and licensed it made that a
the state cannot change the meaning of
regulable activity for that purpose. They made
“person traveling” to “driver”, and they cannot
everyone else believe it was the same for the
change the name or term of “private car,”
general public. The police, you and all your
“pickup” or “motorcycle” to “Motor Vehicle”.
friends are taught that you are always
You declare original intent to prove your
'operating' a 'motor vehicle' which are both
standing!
impunity.” SHUTTLESWORTH
v.
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, 373 US 262
My car is NOT a "Motor Vehicle"
USC Title 18, § 31 9(6) - Definition of
"Motor Vehicle":

every
"The term "motor vehicle" means
description
of
carriage
or
other
contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical
power
and
purposes on
used
the
for commercial
highways
in
the
commercial regulable activites.
Another protection provided to you from
May the state change the definition of a
the beautiful Constitution is the burden of
word or term (MOTOR VEHICLE) from the
jurisdiction is on them to prove that you were
original meaning (USC Title 18, § 31 (6) to
not traveling, but instead driving. This subject
another definition to fit their own needs? NO:
of Due Process is a powerful tool against the
transportation of passengers and property, or
The state cannot change the meaning of
property or cargo."
“motor vehicle” and “driver” to fit their own
USC Title 18, § 31(10) - Definition of
"Commercial Purposes":

"The
term
"used
needs: "Is the proposition to be maintained,
that the constitution meant to prohibit names
commercial
and not things? That a very important act, big
purposes" means the carriage of the persons
with great and ruinous mischief which is
or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or
expressly
other
appropriate
consideration,
for
or
directly
or
forbidden
for
its
by
words
description;
may
or other undertaking for profit."
the constitution, in one of its most important
"drive" it. If you are only using it to travel
around to go to work, school, groceries, or
any other private reason then it IS NOT A
"MOTOR VEHICLE".
'The FIX' button. Still not convinced, click the
'Still doubt?' button below.
be
performed by the substitution of a name? That
"commercial vehicle" if you are getting paid to
will put Due Process to work below by clicking
most
indirectly in connection with any business,
So your car, SUV, or motorcycle is only a
circus and revenue agents, aka police. We
provisions, may be openly evaded by giving a
new name to an old thing? We cannot think
so.” […The State] cannot change the name of
a thing to avoid the mandates of the
Constitution.]" CRAIG v. MISSOURI, U S 29,
410
2