Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The Common Law & Your Right to Travel

Expand Messages
  • Legalbear
    Search your traffic statutes in your state for the abrogation of the common law. I predict you won’t find it. Bear [46] [W]here the interaction of
    Message 1 of 3 , Mar 9, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      Search your traffic statutes in your state for the abrogation of the common law. I predict you won’t find it. Bear

       

      [46]        "[W]here the interaction of common law and statutory law is at issue, we acknowledge and respect the General Assembly's authority to modify or abrogate common law, but can only recognize such changes when they are clearly expressed." Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322, 327 (Colo. 2004); see also Van Waters & Rogers, Inc. v. Keelan, 840 P.2d 1070 (Colo. 1992) (because statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed, if the General Assembly intends to abrogate rights that would otherwise be available under the common law, it must manifest that intent expressly or by clear implication). Shelby Resources v. Wells Fargo Bank, 2007.CO.0000082<http://www.versuslaw.com> No. 05CA2022 (Colo.App. 2007).

       

      it may therefore selectively modify or abrogate portions of that law, at its choice. We have long made clear, however, that courts will not lightly presume a legislative intent to do so; and as a matter of statutory interpretation, changes to the common law, as it has been adopted by the General Assembly, will be recognized only when they are expressly mandated or necessarily implied by subsequent legislation. Vaughan v. McMinn, 945 P.2d 404, 408 (Colo. 1997).

       

      [53]        Our conclusion today, grounded in our plain meaning analysis, is further supported by the principle that statutes may not be interpreted to abrogate the common law unless such abrogation was clearly the intent of the General Assembly. The plain meaning rule and the principle that a statute may not abrogate the common law absent legislative intent to do so inform each other: The standard for judicial interpretation of a statute in abrogation of the common law, namely that a statute purporting such abrogation must expressly or by clear implication do so, requires more than an "imagined connection." Preston v. Dupont, 2001.CO.0000395 <http://www.versuslaw.com>¶ ; 35 P.3d 433 (Colo. 2001).

       

       

      This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement. That 630*630 proposition was early stated by Chief Justice Taney in the Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849):

       

          "For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed, we are one people, with one common country. We are all citizens of the United States; and, as members of the same community, must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own States."

       

      We have no occasion to ascribe the source of this right to travel interstate to a particular constitutional provision.[8] It suffices that, as MR. JUSTICE STEWART said for the Court in United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 757-758 (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.

       

          ". . . [T]he right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is 631*631 that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created. In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."

       

      Thus, the purpose of deterring the in-migration of indigents cannot serve as justification for the classification created by the one-year waiting period, since that purpose is constitutionally impermissible. If a law has "no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional." United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 581 (1968). Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 US 618, 629-631 (1969).

       

       

      Phone Contact: 720-675-7230

      Best times to call: 8:30 am-9:00 pm MST

      Bear's Pages: www.irsterminator.com www.legalbears.com www.legalbearsblog.com

      www.irslienthumper.com www.irslevythumper.com www.irs-armory.com www.freedivorceforms.net

      www.cantheydothat.com (a free lien evaluation) www.trafficrocketblog.com Send an email to:

      tips_and_tricks-subscribe@yahoogroups.com to join Tips & Tricks for Court Group

       

    • Walin
      Bear, May I reply to this? This is timely in the extreme.  Starting this May the National ID act (2005) starts, and all 50 states will be using the Drivers
      Message 2 of 3 , Mar 9, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Bear, May I reply to this? This is timely in the extreme.  Starting this May the National ID act (2005) starts, and all 50 states will be using the Drivers License as the vehicle to fulfill it. You will need your birth certificate, Social Security, other personal data, and possibly biometric data.

        11 AmJur, under Constitutional law (About page 1157) states very plainly that the Right of Liberty includes the Right of travel using the conveyance of the day, as long as it is not for commercial purposes, without permission being needed. Yet I know of people who have tried to operate their private auto on the public thoroughfare and were ticketed. The police, being paid by the state, do not want to hear it.

        Wally

        PS: Thanks for your recent articles, I appreciate the content.



        Search your traffic statutes in your state for the abrogation of the common law. I predict you won’t find it.
      • The Handyman
        In 1986 I was in prison. My group formed the Common Law Court of the United States of America and I applied to that court for a writ of habeas corpus. It was
        Message 3 of 3 , Mar 10, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          In 1986 I was in prison. My group formed the Common Law Court of the United States of America and I applied to that court for a writ of habeas corpus. It was granted but the Warden would not release me. He would not honor a common law order. Nor would the sheriff or governor. Thereafter, I applied to a state court to enforce a foreign judgment and such was denied. On appeal one judge dissented in my favor and he said that the common law and its courts were not under any statutory authority as it was not formed by congress or any legislature. Therefore, it could not be ignored or abrogated by those groups or any other group. He further said that if an atomic bomb destroyed the entire United States and only two people survived, the common law would survive with them. The common law is a natural right. It is indestructible. You demand it and you won't find any abrogation of the common law in any statute or book.


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Walin
          To: tips_and_tricks@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 5:10 PM
          Subject: [tips_and_tricks] The Common Law & Your Right to Travel



          Bear, May I reply to this? This is timely in the extreme. Starting this May the National ID act (2005) starts, and all 50 states will be using the Drivers License as the vehicle to fulfill it. You will need your birth certificate, Social Security, other personal data, and possibly biometric data.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.