ROD CLASS & THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" HOAX & THE "NO DRIVER'S LICENSE REQUIRED" HOAX
FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afCz8AjvYdY&t=421s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6SGIfO4ug4&t=69s
THE HOAX I: Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the grounds that every person has a "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is the same thing as the "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, this is not so.
THE TRUTH: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is merely the JUDICIALLY-recognized RIGHT TO LEAVE ONE STATE AND TO ENTER ANOTHER STATE. It has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as a "RIGHT TO DRIVE" a motor vehicle. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know this.
THE HOAX II: Further, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists point out that under FEDERAL law, A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE to drive a motor vehicle UNLESS THAT PERSON IS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE" AMONG ["BETWEEN"] THE "SEVERAL STATES" ("interstate commerce"), a narrow subject governed by FEDERAL law. See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8 (listing ALL POWERS of Congress). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8 . https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause.
THE TRUTH: But, what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know is that STATE LAW APPLIES TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME. This is because, under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS THE SUBJECT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES OUTSIDE THE NARROW FEDERAL CONTEXT OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. And, under STATE law, a person is required to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle WHEN THAT PERSON IS NOT ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". So, when BOTH FEDERAL law and STATE law are COMBINED AND APPLIED TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME, A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN ALL CONTEXTS, ALL THE TIME, NO MATTER WHAT (whether or not that person is engaged in "interstate commerce"). But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know this.
THE LAW:
1). OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT, in the absence of FEDERAL legislation, THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THAT DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q=1915++%22and+the+licensing+of+their+drivers%22++%22it+may+require+the+registration%22+%22as+well+as+others%22+%22of+all+motor+vehicles%22+%22in+respect+to+the+operation%22++%22a+state+may+rightfully+prescribe+uniform+regulations%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60
Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed FEDERAL legislation regulating ONLY THOSE DRIVERS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN "interstate COMMERCE" (not other drivers). Under the tenth amendment (and under this decision), this STILL RESERVED unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY THOSE DRIVERS WHO WERE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "interstate COMMERCE" (not other drivers). So, in this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now OPPOSITES of one another (FEDERAL law ONLY governs drivers ENGAGED IN "interstate COMMERCE" and STATE law ONLY governs drivers "NOT" ENGAGED IN "interstate COMMERCE"). So, if you are driver who proves that you were NOT ENGAGED IN "interstate COMMERCE", YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (instead of FEDERAL law). Either way, a driver's license is required.
2). Under the tenth amendment, the STATES have the RIGHT to require driver's licenses of ONLY THOSE DRIVERS WHO ARE NOT ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q=%22tenth+amendment%22+%22are+reserved+for+the+states%22+%22A+state%22+%22may+require%22+%22the+licensing+of+their+drivers%22+%22belonging+to+the+states%22+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4613890670558831166&q=%22may+require%22+%22licensing+of+their+drivers%22+%22state+laws+requiring+valid+driver%27s+license%22+%22belonging+to+the+states%22+%22a+state%22+%22states+have+the+right+to+regulate%22+%22by+requiring+that+drivers%22+%22obtain+driver%27s+licenses%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4259598666103911788&q=%22necessity+of+regulation%22++%22may+constitutionally+regulate%22+++%22states%22+%22license+their+drivers%22+%22the+universal+practice+is+to+register+ownership%22+%22uses+of%22+%22public+highwaysc%22+%22the+supreme+court%22+%22did+not+limit+its+holding+to%22+commercial&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006
3). THERE IS NO "RIGHT TO DRIVE".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9780294138406294886&q=%22the+constitution+recognizes+a+right+to+travel%22+%22it+does+not+recognize+a+fundamental+right+to+drive%22+%22right+to+free+movement%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 . (NEAR THE END OF THE CASE)
4). "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" DEFINED.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4721017505990988840&q=+%22the+constitutional+right+to+travel+from+one+state+to+another%22+%22Right+to+travel+discussed+in+our+cases%22+%22protects+the+right+of+a+citizen+of+one+state+to+enter+and+to+leave+another+state%22++&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 . (SEE BOTH SECTIONS.).
5). The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q=%22the+right+to+travel%22+%22is+not+synonymous%22+%22with+the+right+to+operate+a+motor+vehicle%22++%22The+operation+of+a+motor+vehicle%22+%22is+not+a+natural+right%22+%22It+is+a+conditional+privilege%22+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9621580109864231465&q=%22this+is+not%22+%22what+is+at+issue+here+is+not+his+right+to+travel+interstate,+but+his+right+to+operate+a+motor+vehicle%22+%22Miller+does+not+have+a+fundamental+right+to+drive%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10451209462604692152&q=%22The+right+to+travel%22+%22is+the+right%22+%22to+travel+from+one+state+to+another%22+%22Petitioners+are+free+to+leave+the+state%22+%22although+they+may+not+drive+without+a+drivers+license%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q=complying+without+merit+%22right+to+travel%22+%22petitioner+misunderstands%22+%22there+is+no+fundamental+right%22+vehicle++%22nonexistent+right%22+motor+vehicles+license+%22to+operate%22++%22to+drive%22+%22without+a+valid%22+%22he+was+constitutionally+entitled%22+%22petitioner+claims+that%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
6). State requirements for driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4613890670558831166&q=%22state+laws+requiring+valid+driver%27s+license+to+operate+a+motor+vehicle+do+not+violate+right+to+travel%22+%22there+is+no+fundamental+right+to+drive%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8872041112923644828&q=%22right+to+travel%22+%22does+not+impermissibly+burden+his%22+%22does+not+implicate%22+%22only+denies+plaintiff+the+ability+to+drive+himself+in+a+car%22+%22right+to+travel%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8886781550786925928&q=%22right+to+travel+has+not+been+infringed+upon+by+the+requirement%22+%22that+an+individual+have+a+valid+driver%27s+license+to+lawfully+operate+a+motor+vehicle%22&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12477576553628312121&q=%22does+not+rise+to+the+level+of+a+violation%22%22do+not+violate%22+%22do+not+implicate%22+%22there+is+no+fundamental+right+to+drive+a+motor+vehicle%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
7). A person may freely exercise their "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" without "DRIVING" ANYTHING by walking, riding a bicycle or horse, or as a "PASSENGER" in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q=+%22If+he+wishes,+he+may+walk,+ride+a+bicycle+or+horse,+or+travel+as+a+passenger+in+an+automobile,+bus,+airplane+or+helicopter.+He+cannot,+however,+operate+a+motor+vehicle%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9621580109864231465&q=+%22the+plaintiff+is+not+being+prevented+from+traveling+interstate+by+public+transportation,+by+common+carrier,+or+in+a+motor+vehicle+driven+by+someone+with+a+license+to+drive+it%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
8). AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ALWAYS LOSE.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q=%22right+to+travel%22+natural++%22another+entity%22+immune+person+foreign+entities+%22American+National%22+corporations+corporate+artificial+entities+sovereign&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9626485208674815070&q=%22dangerous+drivers%22+%22the+operation%22+travelling+ambassador+immunity+traveling+%22in+a+conveyance%22+%22is+a+privilege%22+Diplomatic+%22cannot+be+asserted+unilaterally%22+%22exists+only%22+%22another+state%27s+sovereignty%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8886781550786925928&q=%22Anthony+Troy+Williams%22+%22right+to+travel+has+not+been+infringed+upon%22+%22he+is+not+required+to+have+a+drivers+license+if+he+is+not+traveling+in+commerce%22+%22attorney+in+fact+for+the+legal+fiction%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 . Note that this is the same person who stars in the 3 minute video below.
9). WHAT ABOUT CASE LAW THAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS CITE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR HOAX? Ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZrB0TRFYI
Amateur legal theorists ONLY CITE case law that says a person has a "RIGHT" to: a). "TRAVEL"; b). "USE THE ROADWAYS"; c). "LOCOMOTION"; d). "PASSAGE"; e). "FREE TRANSIT"; and f). "USE ORDINARY CONVEYANCES". Note that the word, "DRIVE" is conspicuously absent in all of these cases.
But, amateur legal theorists DO NOT CITE case law that actually says that a person has a "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" (because no such law exists) AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT MATTER.
3 MINUTE VIDEO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8
SNOPES:
http://m.snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/
https://youtu.be/afCz8AjvYdY
https://youtu.be/L6SGIfO4ug4
https://youtu.be/9MZrB0TRFYI
https://youtu.be/cLbXtscZBM8
FIRST, SEE THE HOAX HERE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afCz8AjvYdY&t=421s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6SGIfO4ug4&t=69s
THE HOAX I: Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists falsely claim that A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE on the grounds that every person has a "RIGHT TO TRAVEL". Thus, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists mistakenly believe that the "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is the same thing as the "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE". But, this is not so.
THE TRUTH: The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" is merely the JUDICIALLY-recognized RIGHT TO LEAVE ONE STATE AND TO ENTER ANOTHER STATE. It has NOTHING to do with "DRIVING" anything. Under the law, there is no such thing as a "RIGHT TO DRIVE" a motor vehicle. But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know this.
THE HOAX II: Further, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists point out that under FEDERAL law, A PERSON IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE to drive a motor vehicle UNLESS THAT PERSON IS ENGAGED IN "COMMERCE" AMONG ["BETWEEN"] THE "SEVERAL STATES" ("interstate commerce"), a narrow subject governed by FEDERAL law. See Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8 (listing ALL POWERS of Congress). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-i-section-8 . https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/commerce_clause.
THE TRUTH: But, what Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know is that STATE LAW APPLIES TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME. This is because, under the tenth amendment, STATE LAW GOVERNS THE SUBJECT OF DRIVER'S LICENSES OUTSIDE THE NARROW FEDERAL CONTEXT OF "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" (IN ALL OTHER CONTEXTS). http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/tenth-amendment. And, under STATE law, a person is required to have a driver’s license to drive a motor vehicle WHEN THAT PERSON IS NOT ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE". So, when BOTH FEDERAL law and STATE law are COMBINED AND APPLIED TO THE SAME PERSON AT THE SAME TIME, A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DRIVER’S LICENSE TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE IN ALL CONTEXTS, ALL THE TIME, NO MATTER WHAT (whether or not that person is engaged in "interstate commerce"). But, Rod Class and other amateur legal theorists do not know this.
THE LAW:
1). OVER A CENTURY AGO, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT, in the absence of FEDERAL legislation, THE STATES HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE ALL DRIVERS OF ALL MOTOR VEHICLES TO HAVE DRIVER'S LICENSES, WHETHER OR NOT THAT DRIVER WAS ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13681451034893205402&q=1915++%22and+the+licensing+of+their+drivers%22++%22it+may+require+the+registration%22+%22as+well+as+others%22+%22of+all+motor+vehicles%22+%22in+respect+to+the+operation%22++%22a+state+may+rightfully+prescribe+uniform+regulations%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60
Since this decision, CONGRESS (in compliance with this decision and in compliance with Art. 1, Sec. 8, clause 3, U.S. Const.) passed FEDERAL legislation regulating ONLY THOSE DRIVERS WHO WERE ENGAGED IN "interstate COMMERCE" (not other drivers). Under the tenth amendment (and under this decision), this STILL RESERVED unto THE STATES the power to regulate ONLY THOSE DRIVERS WHO WERE "NOT" ENGAGED IN "interstate COMMERCE" (not other drivers). So, in this sense, FEDERAL law and STATE law are now OPPOSITES of one another (FEDERAL law ONLY governs drivers ENGAGED IN "interstate COMMERCE" and STATE law ONLY governs drivers "NOT" ENGAGED IN "interstate COMMERCE"). So, if you are driver who proves that you were NOT ENGAGED IN "interstate COMMERCE", YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN THAT YOU ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW (instead of FEDERAL law). Either way, a driver's license is required.
2). Under the tenth amendment, the STATES have the RIGHT to require driver's licenses of ONLY THOSE DRIVERS WHO ARE NOT ENGAGED IN "INTERSTATE COMMERCE" .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q=%22tenth+amendment%22+%22are+reserved+for+the+states%22+%22A+state%22+%22may+require%22+%22the+licensing+of+their+drivers%22+%22belonging+to+the+states%22+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4613890670558831166&q=%22may+require%22+%22licensing+of+their+drivers%22+%22state+laws+requiring+valid+driver%27s+license%22+%22belonging+to+the+states%22+%22a+state%22+%22states+have+the+right+to+regulate%22+%22by+requiring+that+drivers%22+%22obtain+driver%27s+licenses%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4259598666103911788&q=%22necessity+of+regulation%22++%22may+constitutionally+regulate%22+++%22states%22+%22license+their+drivers%22+%22the+universal+practice+is+to+register+ownership%22+%22uses+of%22+%22public+highwaysc%22+%22the+supreme+court%22+%22did+not+limit+its+holding+to%22+commercial&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006
3). THERE IS NO "RIGHT TO DRIVE".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9780294138406294886&q=%22the+constitution+recognizes+a+right+to+travel%22+%22it+does+not+recognize+a+fundamental+right+to+drive%22+%22right+to+free+movement%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 . (NEAR THE END OF THE CASE)
4). "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" DEFINED.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4721017505990988840&q=+%22the+constitutional+right+to+travel+from+one+state+to+another%22+%22Right+to+travel+discussed+in+our+cases%22+%22protects+the+right+of+a+citizen+of+one+state+to+enter+and+to+leave+another+state%22++&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 . (SEE BOTH SECTIONS.).
5). The "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" IS NOT ABOUT "DRIVING" ANYTHING.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q=%22the+right+to+travel%22+%22is+not+synonymous%22+%22with+the+right+to+operate+a+motor+vehicle%22++%22The+operation+of+a+motor+vehicle%22+%22is+not+a+natural+right%22+%22It+is+a+conditional+privilege%22+&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9621580109864231465&q=%22this+is+not%22+%22what+is+at+issue+here+is+not+his+right+to+travel+interstate,+but+his+right+to+operate+a+motor+vehicle%22+%22Miller+does+not+have+a+fundamental+right+to+drive%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10451209462604692152&q=%22The+right+to+travel%22+%22is+the+right%22+%22to+travel+from+one+state+to+another%22+%22Petitioners+are+free+to+leave+the+state%22+%22although+they+may+not+drive+without+a+drivers+license%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q=complying+without+merit+%22right+to+travel%22+%22petitioner+misunderstands%22+%22there+is+no+fundamental+right%22+vehicle++%22nonexistent+right%22+motor+vehicles+license+%22to+operate%22++%22to+drive%22+%22without+a+valid%22+%22he+was+constitutionally+entitled%22+%22petitioner+claims+that%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
6). State requirements for driver's licenses DO NOT VIOLATE THE "RIGHT TO TRAVEL".
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4613890670558831166&q=%22state+laws+requiring+valid+driver%27s+license+to+operate+a+motor+vehicle+do+not+violate+right+to+travel%22+%22there+is+no+fundamental+right+to+drive%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8872041112923644828&q=%22right+to+travel%22+%22does+not+impermissibly+burden+his%22+%22does+not+implicate%22+%22only+denies+plaintiff+the+ability+to+drive+himself+in+a+car%22+%22right+to+travel%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8886781550786925928&q=%22right+to+travel+has+not+been+infringed+upon+by+the+requirement%22+%22that+an+individual+have+a+valid+driver%27s+license+to+lawfully+operate+a+motor+vehicle%22&hl=en&scisbd=2&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12477576553628312121&q=%22does+not+rise+to+the+level+of+a+violation%22%22do+not+violate%22+%22do+not+implicate%22+%22there+is+no+fundamental+right+to+drive+a+motor+vehicle%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
7). A person may freely exercise their "RIGHT TO TRAVEL" without "DRIVING" ANYTHING by walking, riding a bicycle or horse, or as a "PASSENGER" in an automobile, bus, airplane or helicopter.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5478545834163197366&q=+%22If+he+wishes,+he+may+walk,+ride+a+bicycle+or+horse,+or+travel+as+a+passenger+in+an+automobile,+bus,+airplane+or+helicopter.+He+cannot,+however,+operate+a+motor+vehicle%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9621580109864231465&q=+%22the+plaintiff+is+not+being+prevented+from+traveling+interstate+by+public+transportation,+by+common+carrier,+or+in+a+motor+vehicle+driven+by+someone+with+a+license+to+drive+it%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
8). AMATEUR LEGAL THEORIES ALWAYS LOSE.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18159286216902234518&q=%22right+to+travel%22+natural++%22another+entity%22+immune+person+foreign+entities+%22American+National%22+corporations+corporate+artificial+entities+sovereign&hl=en&as_sdt=40006
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9626485208674815070&q=%22dangerous+drivers%22+%22the+operation%22+travelling+ambassador+immunity+traveling+%22in+a+conveyance%22+%22is+a+privilege%22+Diplomatic+%22cannot+be+asserted+unilaterally%22+%22exists+only%22+%22another+state%27s+sovereignty%22+&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 .
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8886781550786925928&q=%22Anthony+Troy+Williams%22+%22right+to+travel+has+not+been+infringed+upon%22+%22he+is+not+required+to+have+a+drivers+license+if+he+is+not+traveling+in+commerce%22+%22attorney+in+fact+for+the+legal+fiction%22&hl=en&as_sdt=40006 . Note that this is the same person who stars in the 3 minute video below.
9). WHAT ABOUT CASE LAW THAT AMATEUR LEGAL THEORISTS CITE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR HOAX? Ex: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MZrB0TRFYI
Amateur legal theorists ONLY CITE case law that says a person has a "RIGHT" to: a). "TRAVEL"; b). "USE THE ROADWAYS"; c). "LOCOMOTION"; d). "PASSAGE"; e). "FREE TRANSIT"; and f). "USE ORDINARY CONVEYANCES". Note that the word, "DRIVE" is conspicuously absent in all of these cases.
But, amateur legal theorists DO NOT CITE case law that actually says that a person has a "RIGHT TO DRIVE A MOTOR VEHICLE WITHOUT A DRIVER'S LICENSE" (because no such law exists) AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY WORDS THAT MATTER.
3 MINUTE VIDEO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLbXtscZBM8
SNOPES:
http://m.snopes.com/supreme-court-rules-drivers-licenses-unnecessary/
https://youtu.be/afCz8AjvYdY
https://youtu.be/L6SGIfO4ug4
https://youtu.be/9MZrB0TRFYI
https://youtu.be/cLbXtscZBM8
Last edited by PurpleSkyz on Tue Aug 08, 2017 7:31 pm; edited 1 time in total