On this page I talk about the “right to travel” versus the “privilege to drive.” I show definitions, case law supporting the unalienable right to travel and Maxims.
Definitions regarding “Travel” vs “Drive”
1. Travel is the unalienable act of moving from one place to another, whether on foot, by animal, or via a private conveyance, without engaging in commerce or government-regulated activity. It is a fundamental right recognized as pre-existing, unalienable, and immune from conversion into a privilege through statutory constructs.
2. A Driver is one who is engaged in commercial activity, operating a motor vehicle for hire or profit under statutory definitions. The term “driver” is distinct from “traveler”, as it applies specifically to regulated commerce, requiring licensing, registration, and adherence to statutory mandates.
3. In early editions of Black’s Law Dictionary, the term “Driver” was defined as a Chauffeur, specifically referring to one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle. This definition emphasized the commercial nature of the role, meaning that a Driver was someone engaged in transportation for hire rather than simply a natural person operating a vehicle for personal travel.
4. Drive is a commercial term referring to the operation of a motor vehicle for hire or profit under statutory definitions. It is distinct from “travel,” which is the lawful exercise of free movement without engaging in commerce. The term “drive” is used in licensing schemes to create presumed jurisdiction, converting a fundamental right into a regulated privilege.
5. Vehicle – A device used for transportation, but in statutory contexts, often presumed to be engaged in commerce, thereby subject to licensing and regulation.
6. Motor Vehicle – A commercial designation referring to a self-propelled device used for transporting passengers or goods in commerce, requiring licensing, registration, and adherence to statutory mandates.
7. Private Conveyance – A lawful mode of travel, unrestricted by commercial regulations.
Motor Vehicle – A statutory term used to impose jurisdiction over transportation engaged in commerce.
8. An automobile In Black’s Law Dictionary is generally defined as a self-propelled vehicle designed for personal transportation, distinct from commercial motor vehicles that are subject to regulatory oversight. “Automobile” is a private mode of travel, unrestricted by commercial regulations.
9. Conveyance – A lawful mode of travel or transfer, unrestricted by commercial regulations.
10. Commercial Transport – A regulated activity, requiring licensing, registration, and adherence to statutory mandates.
West Virginia Constitution – Provisions Supporting the Right to Travel – Key Distinctions Between Travel & Driving
- Travel is a lawful exercise of freedom, unrestricted by licensing mandates.
- Driving is a commercial term, referring to one operating a motor vehicle for hire under regulatory jurisdiction.
- Article III, Section 1 – Bill of Rights
“All men are, by nature, equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely: The enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” - Article III, Section 2 – Magistrates Servants of People
“All power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people. Magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.” - Article I, Section 2 – Internal Government and Police
“The government of the United States is a government of enumerated powers, and all powers not delegated to it, nor inhibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people thereof. Among the powers so reserved to the states is the exclusive regulation of their own internal government and police; and it is the high and solemn duty of the several departments of government, created by this constitution, to guard and protect the people of this state from all encroachments upon the rights so reserved.”
United States Constitution – Provisions Supporting the Right to Travel & Sovereignty
- Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 – Privileges and Immunities Clause
“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” - Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 – Commerce Clause
“The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” - Article I, Section 9, Clause 6 – Interstate Free Travel Protection
“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another…” - Ninth Amendment – Protection of Unenumerated Rights
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” - Case Law Supporting the Right to Travel- United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
“The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.” - Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
“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.” - Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
“Since the Constitution guarantees the right of interstate movement, the purpose of deterring the migration of indigents into a State is impermissible, and cannot serve to justify the classification created by the one-year waiting period.” - Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868)
“The Citizens have the correlative right to approach the great departments of the government, the ports of entry through which commerce is conducted, and the various federal offices in the states.” - Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)
“The right to travel embraces three different components: the right to enter and leave another state, the right to be treated equally when visiting another state, and the right to establish residency in a new state.” - Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)
“The right to free movement is a fundamental liberty, and states cannot impose barriers that restrict interstate travel.” - Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972)
“Freedom of movement is essential to a free society, and laws that arbitrarily restrict travel violate constitutional protections.” - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270 (1900)
“The right to travel is a natural right, existing independently of the Constitution, and cannot be infringed without due process.”
Case Law Supporting No Corporate Jurisdiction Over the Living Man
Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators, 3 U.S. 54 (1795)
“Inasmuch as every government is an artificial person, an abstraction, and a creature of the mind only, a government can interface only with other artificial persons.”
- Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906)
“While an individual may lawfully refuse to answer incriminating questions unless protected by an immunity statute, a corporation is a creature of the State, and there is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers.” - Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander, 337 U.S. 562 (1949)
“After a state has chosen to admit foreign corporations to do business within it, they are entitled to equal protection with domestic corporations at least to the extent that their property is entitled to an equally favorable ad valorem tax basis.”
Petition for Writ of Certiorari – Right to Travel vs. Privilege
A petition for writ of certiorari was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging a South Carolina state ruling that converted the right to travel into a privilege, thereby denying due process. The petitioner, John Dalen, argued that:
- The state improperly prosecuted him under statutory laws that circumvent common law principles.
- The requirement for a driver’s license was used to restrict his constitutionally protected right to travel.
- The state’s mandate requiring a Social Security number for a license violated his religious beliefs, making compliance impossible.
- The state ignored Supreme Court precedents affirming that a right cannot be converted into a privilege.
Driver’s Licenses vs. Travel Rights – Legal Distinction - The debate over driving vs. traveling centers on whether personal movement on public roads requires government permission. Courts have ruled that:
- Traveling is a right recognized by the constitution of the united states of America, but operating a motor vehicle, a commercial term under statutory definitions is treated as a regulated privilege and violates the right to travel.
- Licensing laws were created and exist to ensure public safety of citizens, but some argue they improperly restrict fundamental liberties and rights of nationals and freemen.
- The distinction between commercial driving and private travel is often blurred by statutory language, leading to jurisdictional overreach causing a breach of rights of the natural, living man.
Fundamental Maxims of Law Supporting Free Travel
- “Liberty is the natural right of man.”
- “What is mine cannot be taken away without my consent.”
- “The law does not compel a man to do that which is impossible.”
- “No one is bound to obey an unlawful command.”
- “The enjoyment of one’s rights ought not to be hindered by fraud or oppression.”
- “The law protects the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.”
- “A right cannot be converted into a privilege by legislation.”
- “The government exists to protect rights, not to grant privileges.”
- “He who does not deny, admits.”
Terms that cause Jurisdiction
| Commercial (Public) | Non-commercial (Private) |
| 1. Drive | Travel |
| 2. Driver | Traveler |
| 3. Motor Vehicle, Vehicle (Statutory object) | Automobile, Conveyance, Car |
| 4. Traffic (Trafficking, regulated flow) | Passage/Wayfaring |
| 5. Operate (Drive) | Exercise of Conveyance |
| 6. Operator (Licensed Driver) | Navigator, traveler |
| 7. Highway, Public road | Common Way/Public Right-of-Way |
| 8. License to Drive | Leave, Right of Passage |
| 9. Registration of Vehicle | Notice of Conveyance |
| 10. Passenger (they pay for transportation) | Guest |
If you get pulled over, the cop will want your operator license, proof of registration and proof of insurance. This trifecta helps them determine or gain jurisdiction over you. Example per the table above, they want to determine if you are driving a motor vehicle upon the highways of the “State of XXX)” . They want to determine if the state has equitable title over the vehicle (if it is registered, i.e. given to them) by asking for the registration, they want proof of insurance because as a “citizen” under their driving contract/construct, they want to see if you are liable under their statutes. A US citizen is bound to the rules, regulations, statutes, ordinances and codes and must abide by their rules. A citizen is a member of their society and must pay for violations. A free man living and operating privately is not bound by their rules and statutes. Remember, “What one creates, one controls.” The government did not create you. You can see at the top of the page the separations and distinctions of a driver v. traveler. If they ask you, “Where are you driving to/from?” and you say, “I am driving home/to work.”, or if they ask “Is this your motor vehicle?” and you simply answer, “Yes.” you have effectively put yourself in their jurisdiction by the use of their words (per their words such as driving, and motor vehicle) and their definitions and they will tend to you appropriately. Most cops don’t even know this. They were trained what to say and how to respond per the answer/s you give them. Never consent to anything and shut your mouth. Invoke the 5th amendment of the constitution of these several united States of America and remain silent. Don’t even answer “Yes” to a question such as “Can you speak?” and most certainly do not say “I understand.” or “yes” when they ask you if you understand what they are telling you. To say that you “understand” them is to say that you “stand under” them and the contract they are offering you. If you must respond when they say, “Do you understand?” simply say, “I comprehend.” Silence is your friend to the bitter end because they will use anything you say and it will most certainly be used against you in a court of law.
Right to Travel – Case Law Support
Legal Citation:
Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 A.L.R. 604 (1930), Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. It outlines a legal principle regarding the rights of citizens to use public highways. Here’s a breakdown from top to bottom:
Core Principle:
The court recognized that a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business. This is a common right, not a mere privilege, and it is grounded in the broader guarantees of liberty.
Nature of the Right:
This right is inherent and cannot be arbitrarily granted or denied by government authority. It is a fundamental right retained by the people, consistent with the Ninth Amendment’s recognition that unenumerated rights are not to be denied or disparaged.
Conditions for Exercise:
The right applies most directly to non-commercial use—personal travel or the transport of property for individual purposes. A citizen may exercise this right at their own discretion, provided they do so in an orderly and decent manner.
Protection from Interference:
In exercising this right, a citizen must not infringe upon the rights of others. So long as they act responsibly and without disturbance, they are protected both in their person and in their safe conduct—the ability to travel without undue hindrance.
Legal Holding:
The Virginia court stated: “The right of a 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… The exercise of such a common right, the city may under its police power regulate in the interest of public safety and welfare, but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it.”
Summary:
Thompson v. Smith affirms that citizens have a fundamental right to use public highways for personal, non-commercial travel and transport of property. This right is protected by law, and while it may be subject to reasonable regulation for public safety, it cannot be arbitrarily restricted. The Ninth Amendment provides constitutional grounding for this principle, ensuring that the right to travel remains among those retained by the people, even if not expressly enumerated.
Reasoning
In the case law above, it is maintained by the system’s (the courts) that citizens have the right to travel as long as it is not an act of commerce, that is, making money from driving such as Uber, Door Dash, taxi, truck driver or similar. We know from the definitions provided on the legal definitions page that a citizen is subject of the government. So how much more of a right is it as a non-resident alien to D.C., that is, one who is not a citizen of the U.S.? A freeman, i.e., a national, is not bound by the terms and conditions of statutes, codes, regulations, and ordinances put forth by the government and municipalities, (as long as they cause no harm to another man or woman or their rights.) So, if it is a right of a citizen to travel, then it is for sure an unalienable right of a living man, whose rights are recognized and protected by the Constitution of the united states of America. So, if cops took an oath to defend and protect the constitution, why are they committing treason when they violate the rights of free men? You know, they are in fact, committing treason via an act of tyranny.
(Now enters: United States Code – U.S.C. §§ 18-241 and U.S.C. 18-242, enforceable by U.S.C §§ 42-1983, 42-1985, 42-1986) Click the codes to open Cornell Law School page on these codes.
Video “Right to Travel” (Adhesion Contracts)
Here is a link to a short Facebook video reel on the subject, “Right to Travel”
All rights reserved. All information on Raven Info “raveninfo.com” is not to be construed as legal advice and is intended for entertainment and educational purposes only. ©2025 Raveninfo.com, Raven Info. UCC 1-308