(VIDEO) Supreme Court Rules: You Do Not Need a Driver's License for Traveling

Only if you are engaged in COMMERCE, do you need a license

by Dillon Critique from;

what's the DILL?

(SUBSTACK)

Saturday November 17 2024

https://www.blackboxpolitics.substack.com

---

---

NOTE: Some of the numbers have been cut off at the very ends. You can use the screenshot to correlate with the proper court case text below. They are in order and can be easily matched…

• Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

• 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

• II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135

• Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;

• Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777

• Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75

• Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

• Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

• Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489

• Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

• Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
  -Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
  -Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
  -25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

• Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

• State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073;
  Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171;
  Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256;
  Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

• Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982;
  Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82

• State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864

• State vs. City of Spokane, supra.

• Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

• Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
  Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

• 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect.202, Pg. 987

• Stephenson vs. Rinford, 287 US 251;
  -Pachard vs Banton, 264 US 140, and cases cited;
  -Frost and F. Trucking Co. vs. Railroad Commission, 271 US 592;
  -Railroad commission vs. Inter-City Forwarding Co., 57 SW.2d 290;
  -Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313

• Ex Parte Sterling, 53 SW.2d 294;
  Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82;
  Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

• Thompson vs. Smith, supra.

• Ibid.

• Robertson vs. Dept. of Public Works, supra.

• American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200

• International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

• City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232

• 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.427, Pg. 717

• Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45;
  Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3309

• Century Dictionary, Pg. 2034

• Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940

• Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 SE.2d 658

• Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213 P. 26

• Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 3307

• Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18

• People vs. Henderson, 218 NW.2d 2, 4

• Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent Reproducer Corp., 42 F.2d 116, 118

• Rosenblatt vs. California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P.2d 199, 203

• State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc.2d 700; 211 NW.2d 480, 487

• People vs. Smith, 108 Am.St.Rep. 715;
  Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under "Police Power"

• Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876;
  Blair vs. Broadmore, 93 SE 532

• Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540;
  Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848;
  O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887

• Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60;
  Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613

• Tiche vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60

• Mehlos vs. Milwaukee, 146 NW 882

• Simon vs. Craft, 182 US 427

• Barbour vs. Connolly, 113 US 27, 31;
  Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 US 356

• Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)

• See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020;
  Dennis vs. Moses, 52 P. 333

• Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, Pg. 11

• Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

• 25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260

• Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 US 43;
  Pachard vs. Banton, supra.

• Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619;
  Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

• Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15

• Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389

• McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat 316

• Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall 35, 46

• Ibid., Pg. 47

• Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516

• Miranda, supra.

• Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661

• Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616

Sources:

Driver Licensing vs. the Right to Travel

U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Roads

Right to travel without a license

US-Supreme-Court-Ruling-Proving-No-License-Necessary.docx

U.S. SUPREME COURT No License Necessary

The Privilege to Drive/Operate a Motor Vehicle vs. The Right to Travel | The Liberty Beacon

Proof US Supreme Court Says You Dont Need A License To Drive in The United States | PDF | Natural And Legal Rights | United States Constitution