Finding a Lawyer to argue that traveling is a right and not a privilege

[presence]

rights that are not specified in the Constitution can't and aren't be rights

the powers are enumerated, and it follows,
that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained;
that the constitution is a bill of powers,
the great residuum being the rights of the people

James Madison 1790

the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius would not be used at a later time to deny fundamental rights merely because they were not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Gibson v. Matthews, 926 F.2d 532, 537 (6th Cir. 1991)

The purpose of the Ninth Amendment was to ensure that all [enumerated and unenumerated] individual natural rights had the same stature and force after some of them were enumerated as they had before; and its existence argued against a latitudinarian interpretation of federal powers.

The Presumption of Liberty by Barnett, R.E., published by Princeton University Press.

 

[euphemia]

I don't have permission to go outside the US without a passport. If traveling is a right, then it is ignored by 100% of governments.

 

[PRB]

Hello yourself, unhelpful thread troller.

First off, I was just asking him the question. Learn how to read. Second, there are times and venues when you can't do discovery.

I'm sure there are, but I doubt this is one of them, any of which FOIA would help. FOIA takes longer to process than discovery.

 

[PRB]

I don't have permission to go outside the US without a passport. If traveling is a right, then it is ignored by 100% of governments.

LOL. WRONG, you can leave as you please, you can't enter another country without a passport (at least not most first world countries).

A passport is the US State Department's assistance in pleading a foreign country to let you in, NO foreign country is obligated to let you in, EVER. A passport is the government assisting you in asking another country nicely to let you in, if any country wanted you in, they are free to, and they'd not ask for your passport. A passport is NOT US government permission to let you leave, you can leave whenever.

That's the origin/purpose of a passport. If you're asking "Why do I need a passport to fly" the short answer are (based on the gubmint's justification)
-airplane security
-since all countries require you to have a passport, those without one will likely immediately become the burden of the airplane or US government, so nobody would take on the responsibility when it can be solved by having a passport. Having a passport is no promise you can enter a country, but lacking one greatly decreases your chances of it.

If you don't believe me, here's the test, very simple one!

Try walking into Mexico, no passport, driver license is fine, but passport speeds you up.
Board a cruise? Passport not required, but highly recommended.
Both of these are leaving the country, sometimes even entering another, passport isn't always required. Don't conflate the permission to fly with permission to leave.


What you may also be thinking is, why can't foreigners just walk into our borders? After all, traveling is a right, and rights aren't just for citizens, or are they?

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

FOIA takes longer to process than discovery.

No. Your "processing" is not chicken on the factory conveyor belt.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm sure there are, but I doubt this is one of them,..

You've now gone from "ridiculous waste of time" to "I'm sure" it exists. You are simply trolling this thread because this is what you do AND you really don't even know how this works. Neg rep.

 

[PRB]

You've now gone from "ridiculous waste of time" to "I'm sure" it exists. You are simply trolling this thread because this is what you do AND you really don't even know how this works. Neg rep.

I said I doubt this is one of them. I also said FOIA takes longer than you need for a trial, and for purposes of a trial, prosecutor is obligated to give you everything he is going to use. So what are you FOIAing that will help your trial? What kind of conspiracy trial is this?

 

[Ranger29860]

Let me guess, you believe that traveling in an automobile is a state granted privilege and not a constitutional right.. A true statist.

Driving on a STATE funded road is, if you want to "travel" (and in your case operate a motor vehicle) on your own private property or the property of another with permission then go ahead. But driving on a public road is your choice and so you are under their rules (in this case the states).

The state owns the road therefor as the owners they set the rules of anyone traveling on their property. You would not drive through someones house and be arrested for using there property in way they did not give you permission to and then go on to try to sue them for infringing your right to travel would you?

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I said I doubt this is one of them.

In other words, you don't know.

I also said FOIA takes longer than you need for a trial

,

No, you're making an absolute statement that is likely based on nothing. FOIA could take 3 days and discovery could take 3 weeks. Or, just the opposite. Or, countless other combinations where one might or might no be quicker than the other.

You're just making up dumb things now. Neg rep.

...prosecutor is obligated to give you everything he is going to use.

Now you're qualifying what you said earlier. A defendant might file a discovery motion for evidence the prosecutor did not intend to use. You are purposely misleading in your trolling. Neg rep.

What kind of conspiracy trial is this?

Not a conspiracy. Prosecutors can be lazy, trying to gain an advantage, etc.

 

[Weston White]

Most is irrelevant.

But the requiring of licenses in does not necessarly prevent such incidents from occuring, for example: Car plows through market, killing 9, and perhaps my favorite irony: Car Crashes Into AAA Office, Injures 8.

And regardless you are still as individually responsible for seeking remedy in your personal losses and property damages. The state only looks towards criminal negligence. For everything else you are on your own or under the protection of your pay-as-you-go auto-insurance policy.

 

[Acala]

Fighting for a right is not fun however neither is rolling over and being a sheepel...

Who is the victim in this crime?

If you think what you are doing is going to vindicate any right, you are sadly mistaken. Which is why I said that if you are enjoying it, go for it. But if you think you are going to actually accomplish something and change the law, you are wasting your time. I will repeat NO COURT is EVER going to rule that you have a right to use government roads without the government's permission. Ain't going to happen. And if by some miracle or mistake a lower court DID rule in that way, the higher court would crush it. So you are just tilting at windmills. If you enjoy it, do it. Otherwise, EXPECT to be disappointed.

As for your question, let's be clear: I am not defending the law. I am opposed to public roads entirely. I am just telling you that you will not defeat the law. Even if the Constitution CLEARLY supported your case (which it doesn't) the courts would ignore it.

 

[Acala]

Please cite some case law for us non believers.. Thank you.

Just an FYI: the average judge cares much less about precedent than you do. In fact, the vast majority of judges only feel bound by precedent if the prior case is RIGHT ON POINT and comes from a higher court in their state or district. The judge I clerked for even had a name for a case that went against his thinking but which he HAD to follow: "White Horse Case". In the absence of a White Horse case, a judge will rule how they want and select precedent to justify their decision.

Internet "lawyers" seem to believe that if they can find that obscure ancient opinion from some backwater court that sort of says something like what they want, the judges will all run away in fear. The reality is that judges don't give a rat's ass about your precedent unless going against it would mean a rebuke from a higher court or public humiliation.

 

[idiom]

The right to travel that so many seem to believe is in common law and called 'the kings highway'.

Half the point of a government is creating the ability to travel freely and unmolested.

Without public roads one ends up with the ludicrous shambles that are private road networks (go to a country with them and try them.)

In New Zealand you do in fact have the right to travel along waterways to get to the coast, no matter who owns the land. I imagine a number of people here would be incensed with the thought that if they bought some farmland the general public could walk across it willy nilly. That is true right of travel.

The requirement that one must be competent to use an advanced medium or transport so that one is less likely to massively inconvenience others is really genuinely not unreasonable.

 

[acesfull]

If you think what you are doing is going to vindicate any right, you are sadly mistaken. Which is why I said that if you are enjoying it, go for it. But if you think you are going to actually accomplish something and change the law, you are wasting your time. I will repeat NO COURT is EVER going to rule that you have a right to use government roads without the government's permission. Ain't going to happen. And if by some miracle or mistake a lower court DID rule in that way, the higher court would crush it. So you are just tilting at windmills. If you enjoy it, do it. Otherwise, EXPECT to be disappointed.

As for your question, let's be clear: I am not defending the law. I am opposed to public roads entirely. I am just telling you that you will not defeat the law. Even if the Constitution CLEARLY supported your case (which it doesn't) the courts would ignore it.

thank you for your reply... Your last sentence seems to say, that even if a case is supported by the constitution, courts still ignore constitutional law. ( the founding father's must be rolling over in their graves) I did not attend law school however I thought the Constitution was the Supreme Law of the land.... Is it not?
Regards

 

[acesfull]

So the State owns the public roads... I thought the tax paying citizens of the state owned the roads...

If the state owns the public roads then think of how they can strip our liberties at their will.... Scary thought don't you think?

Regards

 

[PRB]

In other words, you don't know.

Correct, is there something wrong with that? I don't know, but I have no reason to believe this would be a case, and lots of reasons to believe it's not the case.
,

No, you're making an absolute statement that is likely based on nothing. FOIA could take 3 days and discovery could take 3 weeks.

You know this from experience? Discovery is based on an individual case, usually gathered by a small part without much other things to handle, the scope, time, and bureaucracy tape is usually smaller than FOIA.

Or, just the opposite. Or, countless other combinations where one might or might no be quicker than the other.

You're just making up dumb things now. Neg rep.

Exceptions don't mean there's no rule or norm.

Now you're qualifying what you said earlier. A defendant might file a discovery motion for evidence the prosecutor did not intend to use. You are purposely misleading in your trolling. Neg rep.

You'd be wasting your time, because prosecutor won't use it, you're just asking for evidence he won't use, LOL.

Am I purposely misleading? Or are you purposely misreading? You seem to really want to find fault in what I say rather than just make your point and prove me wrong.

Not a conspiracy. Prosecutors can be lazy, trying to gain an advantage, etc.

You gain advantage by working, not by being lazy. Burden of proof is on prosecutor, thus silence is not his best weapon. So he can be lazy, but it wouldn't be to defendent's harm.

 

[PRB]

But the requiring of licenses in does not necessarly prevent such incidents from occuring, for example: Car plows through market, killing 9, and perhaps my favorite irony: Car Crashes Into AAA Office, Injures 8.

And regardless you are still as individually responsible for seeking remedy in your personal losses and property damages. The state only looks towards criminal negligence. For everything else you are on your own or under the protection of your pay-as-you-go auto-insurance policy.

Yeah, exactly, licenses don't prevent ALL accidents, so it's pointless!

Just like guns don't prevent all crimes, so it's pointless. Who cares about the 90% of the times when it does, exceptions make rules!

 

[euphemia]

LOL. WRONG, you can leave as you please, you can't enter another country without a passport (at least not most first world countries).

Not exactly. I live in one of the Real ID opt-out states. it is conceivable I could fly out somewhere and not be able to fly home because my driver's license is not part of the federally authorized system. It hasn't happened yet, but there you go.

 

[PRB]

Not exactly. I live in one of the Real ID opt-out states. it is conceivable I could fly out somewhere and not be able to fly home because my driver's license is not part of the federally authorized system. It hasn't happened yet, but there you go.

What you said, if true, it's still not in contradiction to what I said.

There's a difference between not allowed to leave and being allowed to leave but not allowed back in.

If you didn't have a passport, I'd like to know first which country would allow you in (other than Canada and Mexico by land).

When you re-enter, we know that US has a fairly annoying Customs gate if by plane, but again, by land, you may enter by Canada and Mexico quite easily.