Case Law Surrounding The Right to Travel, compiled by Katherine Soulis, May 2022

25 F.2d 938

Max SHACHTMAN, Appellant, v. John Foster DULLES, Individually and as Secretary of State,
et al., Appellees.

Decided June 23, 1955.

The denial of a passport accordingly causes a deprivation of liberty that a citizen otherwise
would have. The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit,
is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law. A restraint
imposed by the Government of the United States upon this liberty, therefore, must conform with
the provision of the Fifth Amendment that "No person shall be * * * deprived of * * * liberty * *
* without due process of law".

*****

Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)

(a) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment. Pp. 357 U. S. 125-127.

(b) The broad power of the Secretary under 22 U.S.C. § 211a to issue passports, which has long
been considered "discretionary," has been construed generally to authorize the refusal of a
passport only when the applicant (1) is not a citizen or a person owing allegiance to the United
States, or (2) was engaging in criminal or unlawful conduct. Pp. 357 U. S. 124-125, 357 U. S.
127-128.

(c) This Court hesitates to impute to Congress, when, in 1952, it made a passport necessary for
foreign travel and left its issuance to the discretion of the Secretary of State, a purpose to give
him unbridled discretion to withhold a passport from a citizen for any substantive reason he may
choose. P. 357 U. S. 128.

*****

U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION: “All codes, rules, and regulations are for government
authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God’s laws. All codes, rules, and
regulations are unconstitutional and lack due process…” Rodrigues v. Ray Donovan, U.S.
Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348, decided in 1985.

And again, in Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2nd) 261. “The common law is the real law, the Supreme
Law of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”.

In a way, these two excellent citations above, are a perfect and complete defense against anyone
presuming that you are subject to private tribunals. It’s well-worth remembering them and using
them whenever appropriate. (Anna Von Reitz)
 Right to Travel [entire article]

DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS, HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT
AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS

By Jack McLamb
from Aid & Abet Newsletter)

For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the
belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a
citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit
or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the
privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal.

Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that
there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege
and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented
here are some of these cases:

CASE #1: "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.

CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public
highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage
or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may
prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has
under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the

states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction
(license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.

CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which

the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under
the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right

that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is
recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles
96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no

room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed
have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as
long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others.

Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and

accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is
restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means
that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in
law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers
armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining
that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his
right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S.
Constitution and most state constitutions.

That means it is unlawful.

The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right
to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and
enforcing state laws.

The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been
enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that
there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as
licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle
inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected
rights. Is that so?

For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a
determination of this very issue.

In Hurtado v. People of the State of California, 110 US 516, the

U.S Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish
rights of the people."

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60, "Statutes that violate the

plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are
null and void."

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point--
that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or
limitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably

made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can

be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be

converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of

this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F
946.
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the
Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put
restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason?

The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall
be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."

In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by
this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the

Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and
judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution..."

Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such

acts by officials?

If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this
places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an
unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate
or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of
law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging
to the people.

These are (1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or (2) by a person

knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions
of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into
the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights
are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and
registrations.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

1) Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways

of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

"...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.
There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between
the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are
numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these
two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions,
we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.

(2) The second group of citizens that is legally under the

jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily
and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and
unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction
through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle
registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by
contract.)

We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law
right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their
rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's
powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the

people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and
obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it
was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed
about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights.

We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and
vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying
laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful,
i.e. laws of no effect -laws that are not laws at all.

An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand

that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect,
defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the
law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a
particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our
nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S.
Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling --discussed
earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing,
registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be

converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is
the exercise of a most basic right.

###