Found on the net elsewhere and placed here until I can read it in its entirety
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPORT OF APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO TRAVEL This memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish presumed fact, Rule 301, Federal Rules of Evidence, and attending State rules. Should interested parties fail to rebut any given allegation of fact or matter of law addressed herein with specificity, the position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of judicial notice, thus preserving fundamental law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will be construed to have general application. This memorandum addresses the issue of state statutes, regulation and licensing of a constitutional right to free travel upon the public roads of the Citizen. PRESPECTIVE If ever a judge understood the public’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated: “Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.” Robertson vs. Department of Public Works 180 Wash 133, 147.
The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, that of state government.
II. RIGHTS
The “most sacred of liberties” of which, Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty which have been placed in conflict by the plaintiff. The definition of personal liberty is:
“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect. 202, p.987.
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty: “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 maybe 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.” [Emphasis added] II Am. Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect. 329. p.ll35. and further... “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.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__.777; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the “most sacred of his liberties,” the Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place without threat of imprisonment; the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life. When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in the course of business do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference between a corporation and an individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated: “...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusals to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not
in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.” [Emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74-75, (1906).
Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
“...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. 6571, 168, p. 516.
It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct theory dealing with this Right or “privilege”. Defendant will attempt to reach a sound conclusion as to what is a “Right to use the road” and what is a “privilege to use the road”. Once reaching this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modem case decision.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491, (1966).
and...
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller vs. United States, 230 V. 486,489, (1956).
and...
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights.” Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946, (1973).
Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.
“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived.’ [Emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 N. E. 22 (1929); Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 N. E. 934 (1891); Boon vs. Clark, 214 S. W. 607 (1919); 25 Am. Jur. (1st) Highways Sect. 163.
and...
“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” [Emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 (1930).
A Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public road is always and only a privilege come from?
“...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, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073 (1926); Hadfield, supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S. Ct. 256 (1924);
Here the courts held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities are unanimous.
“Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that 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, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain.” Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 (1932); Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. 982 (1928).
and...
“The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus.” State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864 (1920).
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so “radically and obviously” from one who uses the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of Washington State? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very “radical and obvious” difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
“The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.” “This distinction, elementary and
fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” State vs. City of Spokane, supra.
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.
“…the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.” Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 So. 782 (1915).
and...
“The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” Teche Lines vs. Danforth., 12 So. 2d 784 (1943); Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law, 329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)
“Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S. Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to Private property...and is regarded as inalienable.” 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect. 202, p.987.
As we can see, the distinction between a “Right” to use the public roads and a “privilege” to use the public roads is drawn upon the line of “using the road as a place of business” and the various state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. courts held on this point?
“First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or condition as it sees fit.” Stephenson vs. Binford, 287 U. S. 251 (1932); Packard vs. Banton, 264 U. S. 140 (1924), and cases cited; Frost Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 U. S. 582 (1926); Railroad commission vs. Jater-City Forwarding Co., 57 S.W.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.
So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the “learned” that an attempt to use the road use as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn between...
Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; Using the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
“[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore, can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a commercial business.” Ex Parte Sterling, 53 S.W. 2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P. 2d 82 (1932); Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
“When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the preservation of the highways.” Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.
“[The state’s] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the use of the highways in connection therewith.” Ibid.
“We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state may prohibit or regulate. The use of the highways for gain.” Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.
There should be considerable authority on a subject considering the importance of this deprivation on the liberty of the individual “using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business.” However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state’s power to convert the individual’s right to travel upon the public roads into a “privilege”.
Therefore, it must be concluded that the Citizen does have a “Right” to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right and it is not a “privilege”.
III. DEFINITIONS
In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do
not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication of statutes in the instant case.
AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been defined as:
“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A. 2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated: “A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle' 251 P. 120.
The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile’.” City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 N.E. 2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
The distinction is made very clear in United State Code, Title 18, §31: “Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a machine, which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
TRAVEL
The term “travel” is a significant term and is defined as: “The term ‘travel’ and ‘traveler’ are usually construed in their broad and general sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of business, convenience, or pleasure.” [Emphasis added] 25 Am. Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 427, p.717.
“Traveler-- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction, business, or health.” Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3309.
“Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train, an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; make a journey.” Century Dictionary, p. 2034.
Therefore, the term “travel” or “traveler” refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one place to another and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right. Notice that in all these definitions the phrase “for hire” never occurs. This term “travel” or “traveler” implies by definition one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of travel and transportation is a traveler.
DRIVER
The term “driver” in contradistinction to “traveler” is defined as: “Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle...” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
Notice that this definition includes one who is “employed” in conducting a vehicle. It should be self-evident that this person could not be “traveling” on a journey, but is using the road as a place in the conduct of business.
OPERATOR
Today we assume that a “traveler” is a “driver,” and a “driver” is an “operator.” However, this is not the case.
“It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn between the terms ‘operator’ and ‘driver’; the ‘operator’ of the service car being the person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying passengers for hire; while the 'driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both ‘operator’ and ‘driver’.” Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 S.E. 2d 658.
To further clarify the definition of an “operator” the court observed that this was a vehicle “for hire” and that it was in the business of carrying passengers. This definition would seem to describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person engaged in the “privilege” of using the road for gain.
This definition then is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier and therefore:
1. Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right meets the definition of a traveler. 2. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a driver or an operator or both.
TRAFFIC
Having defined the terms “automobile,” “motor vehicle,” “traveler,” “driver,” and “operator,” the next term to define is “traffic”:
“...traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some small part of the cost of repairing the wear Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26.
Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the “privilege” to use the public roads “at the expense of those operating for gain.”
In this case, the word “traffic” is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation Service, or in other words, “vehicles for hire.” The word “traffic” is another word, which is to be strictly construed to the conducting of business.
“Traffic-- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like. The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money...” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.
Here again, notice that this definition refers to one “conducting business.” No mention is made of one who is traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e. vehicles for hire. Furthermore, the word “traffic” and “travel” must have different meanings, which the counts recognize. The difference is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:
“...In addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them.”
The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But, what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, now to nail the matter down:
“The word ‘traffic’ is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of commodities.” Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18 (1917).
Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word “traffic” (in either its primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that the term “traffic” is business related and therefore, it is a “privilege.” The net result being that “traffic” is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to one who is not using the roads as source of income or a place of business.
LICENSE
It seems only proper to define the word license,” as the definition of this word will be extremely important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
“The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.” People vs. Henderson, 2l8 N.W. 2d 2, 4.
“Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.” Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F. 2d 116,118.
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to prove the position that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent. This position, however, would raise constitutional questions, as this position would be diametrically opposed to fundamental constitutional law. (See “Conversion of a Right to a Crime,” infra.)
In the instant case, the proper definition of a “license” is: “a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business which is subject to regulation under the police power.” [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P. 2d 199, 203.
This definition would fall more in line with the “privilege” of carrying on business on the streets.
Most people tend to think that “licensing” is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the “licensor” which, in this case, is the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the “licensor.”
“A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and expenses of supervision or regulation.” State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc. 2d 700; 211 N.W. 2d 480, 487.
The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee, which is the real aim of the legislation.
Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government or are they nothing more than a subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our “enforcement agencies” been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, now busying themselves as they “check” our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?
At which Legislative Session will it be before we are forced to get a license for Lawnmowers, Generators, Tillers, and Air Conditioners or before Women are required to have a license for their “blender” or “mixer?” All have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue. At what point does the steady encroachment into our Liberty cease?
POLICE POWER
The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act or omission to act, or where it requires licenses to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant case cannot however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would be open to constitutional objection. (See “taxing power,” infra.)
Each law relating to the legitimate use of police power must ask three questions: 1. Is there threatened danger? 2. Does a regulation involve a constitutional Right? 3. Is the regulation reasonable?
People vs. Smith, 108 Am. St. Rep. 715; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under “Police Power.”
When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues are clarified.
1. First, “is there a threatened danger” in the individual using his automobile on the public highways, in the ordinary course of life and business? The answer is No!
There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy, possibly more so. It is the manner of managing the automobile and that alone, which threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances. (See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)
“The automobile is not inherently dangerous.” Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs. Broadwater, 93 SE 632 (1917).
To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and business, because one might in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See “Due Process,” infra.)
2. Next, does the regulation involve a constitutional Right?
This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a constitutional Right.
3. The third question is the most important in this case. “Is this regulation reasonable?”
The answer is No! It will be shown later in “Regulation,” infra, that this licensing statute is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.
Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the police power in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.
Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the Fourteenth Amendment, since it operates to limit the field of the police power to the extent of
preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Amendment protects. (See Parks vs. State, 64 N.E. 682 (1902)).
“With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.” Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540 (1902); Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.y. Co., 24 A. 848 (1892); O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 103 A. 887. “The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.” [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 U. S. 613 (1935); Buchanan vs. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).
“It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the Constitutions.” Tighe vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60 (1925).
“As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if expressed in the clearest language.” Mehlos vs. City of Milwaukee, 146 N. W. 882 (1914).
As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:
No person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.
As has been demonstrated the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute Right to travel. In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all entities, natural and artificial persons alike, the legislature has deprived this free and natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.
