Thank you for visiting the "Right to Travel" page where you will find yourself on an educational journey. You'll find answers to questions like "What is a license?" "When do you need a license?" The answers are a real trip and you'll get a lot of mileage out of the information. I never get tired of this stuff." - Rodney Spooner
The Right to Travel Freely is Guaranteed
THE Sovereign individuals have a Constitutionally Guaranteed and Lawful RIGHT TO TRAVEL Freely throughout the United States without the need of permission or a license from any State, City or Political Subdivision.
After the natural laws of the universe, the Constitution for the United [Sovereign Republic] States of America is the supreme law of the land. The United States Supreme Court decisions are the only authorized interpretations of that supreme law. Next to the Constitution, in superior authority, are all treaties made or which shall be made by the United States. Then, the fifty titles of the United States code are next in authority as law in the United States of America. Every state constitution is subordinate to and subject to these aforementioned Supreme Laws of the land. If the Constitution for the United States of America and its Supreme Court decisions state you have the right to travel freely throughout the United States without the need or encumbrance of a “Driver’s License:” Then, NO state law can overrule or contradict that law and those decisions. If the United States code plainly states what a “Motor Vehicle” is, then NO state has the right to interpret it differently. Nor, can they ignore, usurp, abrogate, nullify or overrule the U.S. Code.
If the United States is a signatory of an International Treaty or Convention, then every state in the union is a signatory of, bound by, subject to and are to uphold that treaty.
Surprisingly enough, every state constitution and state law, which I have so far read, does comply with and acknowledge the “paramount authority” of the Constitution for the United States and federal laws, to their own states’ constitution, laws and statutes.Exactly what does the Constitution, supreme court decisions and U.S. Code say about the citizen’s right to travel?
Supreme Court Decisions which pertain to the Right to Travel The Passenger Cases (7 Howard) 7 How. 283 (1849)
“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.”
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1943)
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. [113] Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in a preferred position…the privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution.” [115]
Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 (1958)
“The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the fifth amendment.”
NAACP vs. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958)
“Like the right of association [the right to travel freely] is a virtually unconditional personal right guaranteed by the constitution to us all.”
Aphtheker v. Sec. Of State 378 US 500 (1964)
“…a personal liberty protected by the Bill of Rights…Freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to the rights of free speech and association…the constitutional right to travel has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized…that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning…In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.”
United States v. Guest 383 US 745 (1966)
“The constitutional right to travel…is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized…a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning…In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution”
Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US 618 (1969)
“…freedom to travel is an element of the “liberty” secured by [the due process clause of the fifth amendment.]”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 US 147 (1969) [not: 373 US 262(63)]
“…our decisions have made clear that a person faced with…an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right…for which the law purports to require a license.”
Constitutionally Guaranteed Right Cannot Be Converted Into A Crime Miller v. US (5th Circuit) 230 F. 2d. 486 (1956)
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime”
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)
“Where rights are secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Hale v. Henkel 201 US 43 (1906)
“…There is a clear distinction…between an individual and a corporation…The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way…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’s powers are limited by law.”
Byars v. United States 273 US 28 (1927)
“…it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”
Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 170) 5 US 137 (1803)
“…a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law…an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”
Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 (1886)
“An unconstitutional act is not law…it imposes no duty…it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Mugler v. Kansas 123 US 623 (1887)
“The supreme court of the United States is, however, the final expositor and arbiter of all disputed questions touching the scope and meaning of that sacred instrument [the US Constitution], and its decisions thereon are binding upon all courts, both state and federal.”
Ex Parte Young 209 US 123 (1908)
“The Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law…when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the federal constitution. And he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”
Staub v. Baxley 355 US 313 (1958)
“…an ordinance which makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.”
United States v. Jackson 390 US 570 (1968)
“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.”
Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton) 19 US 264 (1821)
“A law cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. The several state legislatures and judiciaries, are all bound by solemn obligation of an oath, to support the federal constitution;…willfully legislating in violation of that constitution…[is] guilty of perjury. [309]”
Without Willful Intent To Violate The Law There Is No Crime. United States v. Murdock 290 US 389 (1933)
“The [Supreme] Court has recognized that the word “willfully” generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of wilfulness as “bad faith or evil intent.”
Spies v. United States 317 US 492 (1943)
“…the word “willfully”…generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known duty. It is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank differences of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care”
Sansone v. United States 380 US 343 (1965)
“If his action was not willful, he was [not] guilty.”
United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973)
“The court, in fact, has recognized that the word “willfully” in these statutes generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of willfulness as “bad faith or evil intent,” …if his action was not willful, he was [not] guilty…”<
Evans v. United States 504 US 255 (1992)
“[The] offense of extortion” was understood…[as] a wrongful taking under a false pretense of official right” [269] and citing White v. State, 56 Ga. 385 & 389 (1876) “generically extortion is an abuse of public justice and a misuse by oppression of the power with which the law clothes a public officer.” [270]
ADDENDUM
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition (1979)
License (In re: Streets & Highways): “The privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor carriers for hire can be acquired by permission or license from the state or it’s political subdivision.”
There are numerous decisions in state supreme courts throughout the United States on the right to travel. They all can be summed up best by the Virginia case:
Thompson v. Smith 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 ALR 604 (1930)
“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 which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and pursue happiness and security. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and includes the right to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a privilege, like the privilege of moving a house on the street, operating a business stand on the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.”
In Re: Charles Stark v. City of San Francisco Cal. Surpreme CT. (1914)
“The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation, and therefore permitting a regulatory license fee, under the rule that when a calling or profession or business is attended with danger or requires a certain degree of scientific knowledge upon which others must rely, then legislation properly steps in and imposes conditions upon its exercise.”
The United States code expressly defines the term Motor Vehicle: Title 18 U.S.C. § 31 (6)
“The term ‘motor vehicle’ means every description of a carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes.”
Constitution for the United [Sovereign Republics] States of America
Article VI paragraph II: “This constitution and the laws of the United States…; and all treaties made or which shall be made…shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding…”
Now that we have a much clearer understanding of what the Constitution, the supreme court decisions and the U.S. Code actually say on the subject; how can we apply this knowledge to our situation?
First: If you “drive” a taxi, limousine, etc…or haul any kind of cargo for Hire; then you are required to have a “driver’s license!” But: If you are NOT engaged in “commercial” activity and do not “carry passengers and/or cargo for hire;” then you do NOT need a “driver’s license”!
You might consider to express your assertion of your constitutional rights in a self-authenticating, notarized, and internationally Apostilled Right to Travel Document.
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902 (3); Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 27 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 44 (a)(2) & (1991 Amendment) all deal with “self-authenticating documents,” acknowledging that they are legal and valid as evidence for the courts and other public offices.
Create a “Right to Travel document: ” write down an affidavit of facts as you know them. You can make it as simple or as complex as you wish. Then, have it notarized. Take it to a Notary Public and have them notarize your signature on your “Right to Travel document.” (You might want to use some other form of identification: Examples: Passport, Firearms ID, etc…instead of a “driver’s license” to verify your ID to the Notary Public.)
Once it is notarized, then you can take it to local state’s Secretary of State’s Office, and have your “Right to Travel” document “APOSTILLED” under the International Treaty of the Convention of the Hague. The state’s secretary, acting for the Secretary of State of the United States, will take and affix a cover letter acknowledging its’ official status as an APOSTILLE of the Convention of the Hague, then they will punch holes in the document, put a ribbon through the holes and emboss their state’s seal to it. (Many states as sovereign republics, have signed this treaty as well.)
The “Apostille” is an international notary, recognized by every country that is a signatory of the “Convention de la Haye du 5 octobre 1961” (and, even by some nations, who are not part of the treaty.)
Then, you will have an “official” document to show anyone who would challenge your lawful “Right to Travel” freely, even internationally.
Any act to attempt to deprive a citizen of their constitutionally guaranteed rights is a direct violation of Federal Law. It is also a crime called a “felony:” Title 18 USC § 241 Conspiracy against rights, and § 242 Deprivation of Rights under color of Law. Civil damages: Title 42 USC § 1986 action for neglect to prevent; § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights and § 1983Civil action for deprivation of rights.
Simply because you are in the right, and have the paramount laws of the land on your side, does not mean you will not be harassed or even attacked for standing up for your constitutional rights, even by those who have sworn an oath to them, and to serve and protect you, as hard as that may be to believe.
Well meaning, ignorant and sometimes ‘evil’ people have been able to assume positions of authority in our society. Instead of obeying their oaths and promises to serve and protect “We the People,” they are only interested in personal gain. They masturbate their egos and they become tyrants.
So, if you are not willing to pledge your Life, your Fortune and your most Sacred Honor to both God and man and stand against the tyranny; fighting all the enemies of the constitution, both enemies “foreign” and the most lethal “domestic” enemies: Then, it would be better for you to submit yourself to “privileges” and ignore your “rights.”
If your only motivation to travel without a “license” is to avoid your responsibilities, then the assertion of your constitutional “Right to Travel” is not the path for you. Because, the truth is there is a greater commitment of responsibility to the assertion of your “rights” and the “paramount” laws of this land than to submit to “privileges.”
However, if you are up to the challenge and are prepared for the commitment, then you now have the knowledge to make an informed decision for yourself and your personal “liberty!”
Take it before your Higher Power. There is a quote in the Christian Bible stating “My people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge:” (Hosea 4:6) Study the law on your own. Don’t be too willing to take anyone’s opinion on any subject as though it were fact. You would be amazed at how many presumptions are accepted as “fact,” and the “Truth” is ignored by those who should and are required to know the “Truth.”
If the United States is a signatory of an International Treaty or Convention, then every state in the union is a signatory of, bound by, subject to and are to uphold that treaty.
Surprisingly enough, every state constitution and state law, which I have so far read, does comply with and acknowledge the “paramount authority” of the Constitution for the United States and federal laws, to their own states’ constitution, laws and statutes.Exactly what does the Constitution, supreme court decisions and U.S. Code say about the citizen’s right to travel?
Supreme Court Decisions which pertain to the Right to Travel The Passenger Cases (7 Howard) 7 How. 283 (1849)
“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.”
Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1943)
“A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. [113] Freedom of press, freedom of speech, freedom of religion are in a preferred position…the privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution.” [115]
Kent v. Dulles 357 US 116 (1958)
“The right to travel is a part of the ‘liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the fifth amendment.”
NAACP vs. Alabama 357 US 449 (1958)
“Like the right of association [the right to travel freely] is a virtually unconditional personal right guaranteed by the constitution to us all.”
Aphtheker v. Sec. Of State 378 US 500 (1964)
“…a personal liberty protected by the Bill of Rights…Freedom of travel is a constitutional liberty closely related to the rights of free speech and association…the constitutional right to travel has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized…that a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning…In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution.”
United States v. Guest 383 US 745 (1966)
“The constitutional right to travel…is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized…a right so elementary was conceived from the beginning…In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the constitution”
Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US 618 (1969)
“…freedom to travel is an element of the “liberty” secured by [the due process clause of the fifth amendment.]”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 US 147 (1969) [not: 373 US 262(63)]
“…our decisions have made clear that a person faced with…an unconstitutional licensing law may ignore it and engage with impunity in the exercise of the right…for which the law purports to require a license.”
Constitutionally Guaranteed Right Cannot Be Converted Into A Crime Miller v. US (5th Circuit) 230 F. 2d. 486 (1956)
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime”
Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436 (1966)
“Where rights are secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Hale v. Henkel 201 US 43 (1906)
“…There is a clear distinction…between an individual and a corporation…The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way…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’s powers are limited by law.”
Byars v. United States 273 US 28 (1927)
“…it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon.”
Marbury v. Madison (1 Cranch 170) 5 US 137 (1803)
“…a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law…an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.”
Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 (1886)
“An unconstitutional act is not law…it imposes no duty…it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Mugler v. Kansas 123 US 623 (1887)
“The supreme court of the United States is, however, the final expositor and arbiter of all disputed questions touching the scope and meaning of that sacred instrument [the US Constitution], and its decisions thereon are binding upon all courts, both state and federal.”
Ex Parte Young 209 US 123 (1908)
“The Eleventh Amendment provides no shield for a state official confronted by a claim that he had deprived another of a federal right under the color of state law…when a state officer acts under a state law in a manner violative of the federal constitution. And he is, in that case, stripped of his official or representative character, and is subjected in his person to the consequences of his individual conduct. The state has no power to impart to him any immunity from responsibility to the supreme authority of the United States.”
Staub v. Baxley 355 US 313 (1958)
“…an ordinance which makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official – as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official – is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.”
United States v. Jackson 390 US 570 (1968)
“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.”
Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton) 19 US 264 (1821)
“A law cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. The several state legislatures and judiciaries, are all bound by solemn obligation of an oath, to support the federal constitution;…willfully legislating in violation of that constitution…[is] guilty of perjury. [309]”
Without Willful Intent To Violate The Law There Is No Crime. United States v. Murdock 290 US 389 (1933)
“The [Supreme] Court has recognized that the word “willfully” generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of wilfulness as “bad faith or evil intent.”
Spies v. United States 317 US 492 (1943)
“…the word “willfully”…generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known duty. It is not the purpose of the law to penalize frank differences of opinion or innocent errors made despite the exercise of reasonable care”
Sansone v. United States 380 US 343 (1965)
“If his action was not willful, he was [not] guilty.”
United States v. Bishop 412 US 346 (1973)
“The court, in fact, has recognized that the word “willfully” in these statutes generally connotes a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty. It has formulated the requirement of willfulness as “bad faith or evil intent,” …if his action was not willful, he was [not] guilty…”<
Evans v. United States 504 US 255 (1992)
“[The] offense of extortion” was understood…[as] a wrongful taking under a false pretense of official right” [269] and citing White v. State, 56 Ga. 385 & 389 (1876) “generically extortion is an abuse of public justice and a misuse by oppression of the power with which the law clothes a public officer.” [270]
ADDENDUM
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition (1979)
License (In re: Streets & Highways): “The privilege of using the streets and highways by the operation thereon of motor carriers for hire can be acquired by permission or license from the state or it’s political subdivision.”
There are numerous decisions in state supreme courts throughout the United States on the right to travel. They all can be summed up best by the Virginia case:
Thompson v. Smith 155 Va. 367, 154 S.E. 579, 71 ALR 604 (1930)
“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 which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and pursue happiness and security. It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and includes the right to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a privilege, like the privilege of moving a house on the street, operating a business stand on the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will.”
In Re: Charles Stark v. City of San Francisco Cal. Surpreme CT. (1914)
“The occupation of a chauffeur is one calling for regulation, and therefore permitting a regulatory license fee, under the rule that when a calling or profession or business is attended with danger or requires a certain degree of scientific knowledge upon which others must rely, then legislation properly steps in and imposes conditions upon its exercise.”
The United States code expressly defines the term Motor Vehicle: Title 18 U.S.C. § 31 (6)
“The term ‘motor vehicle’ means every description of a carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes.”
Constitution for the United [Sovereign Republics] States of America
Article VI paragraph II: “This constitution and the laws of the United States…; and all treaties made or which shall be made…shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding…”
Now that we have a much clearer understanding of what the Constitution, the supreme court decisions and the U.S. Code actually say on the subject; how can we apply this knowledge to our situation?
First: If you “drive” a taxi, limousine, etc…or haul any kind of cargo for Hire; then you are required to have a “driver’s license!” But: If you are NOT engaged in “commercial” activity and do not “carry passengers and/or cargo for hire;” then you do NOT need a “driver’s license”!
- Because; you are not “driving,” you are “traveling.” Because; you are not operating a “motor vehicle;” you are traveling in an “automobile;” “horse-less carriage,” “truck,” “van,” etc…
- Because; you are not transporting “passengers;” they are your traveling “companions” or “guests.”
- Because; you are not carrying “cargo,” it is “private property;” (No matter what you do with it, when you reach your destination.)
- Because; the Supreme Court says you DON’T need any form of “license” or pay any “fee,”to enjoy your “liberty” and your constitutional rights!
You might consider to express your assertion of your constitutional rights in a self-authenticating, notarized, and internationally Apostilled Right to Travel Document.
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902 (3); Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 27 and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 44 (a)(2) & (1991 Amendment) all deal with “self-authenticating documents,” acknowledging that they are legal and valid as evidence for the courts and other public offices.
Create a “Right to Travel document: ” write down an affidavit of facts as you know them. You can make it as simple or as complex as you wish. Then, have it notarized. Take it to a Notary Public and have them notarize your signature on your “Right to Travel document.” (You might want to use some other form of identification: Examples: Passport, Firearms ID, etc…instead of a “driver’s license” to verify your ID to the Notary Public.)
Once it is notarized, then you can take it to local state’s Secretary of State’s Office, and have your “Right to Travel” document “APOSTILLED” under the International Treaty of the Convention of the Hague. The state’s secretary, acting for the Secretary of State of the United States, will take and affix a cover letter acknowledging its’ official status as an APOSTILLE of the Convention of the Hague, then they will punch holes in the document, put a ribbon through the holes and emboss their state’s seal to it. (Many states as sovereign republics, have signed this treaty as well.)
The “Apostille” is an international notary, recognized by every country that is a signatory of the “Convention de la Haye du 5 octobre 1961” (and, even by some nations, who are not part of the treaty.)
Then, you will have an “official” document to show anyone who would challenge your lawful “Right to Travel” freely, even internationally.
Any act to attempt to deprive a citizen of their constitutionally guaranteed rights is a direct violation of Federal Law. It is also a crime called a “felony:” Title 18 USC § 241 Conspiracy against rights, and § 242 Deprivation of Rights under color of Law. Civil damages: Title 42 USC § 1986 action for neglect to prevent; § 1985 Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights and § 1983Civil action for deprivation of rights.
Simply because you are in the right, and have the paramount laws of the land on your side, does not mean you will not be harassed or even attacked for standing up for your constitutional rights, even by those who have sworn an oath to them, and to serve and protect you, as hard as that may be to believe.
Well meaning, ignorant and sometimes ‘evil’ people have been able to assume positions of authority in our society. Instead of obeying their oaths and promises to serve and protect “We the People,” they are only interested in personal gain. They masturbate their egos and they become tyrants.
So, if you are not willing to pledge your Life, your Fortune and your most Sacred Honor to both God and man and stand against the tyranny; fighting all the enemies of the constitution, both enemies “foreign” and the most lethal “domestic” enemies: Then, it would be better for you to submit yourself to “privileges” and ignore your “rights.”
If your only motivation to travel without a “license” is to avoid your responsibilities, then the assertion of your constitutional “Right to Travel” is not the path for you. Because, the truth is there is a greater commitment of responsibility to the assertion of your “rights” and the “paramount” laws of this land than to submit to “privileges.”
However, if you are up to the challenge and are prepared for the commitment, then you now have the knowledge to make an informed decision for yourself and your personal “liberty!”
Take it before your Higher Power. There is a quote in the Christian Bible stating “My people are destroyed for the lack of knowledge:” (Hosea 4:6) Study the law on your own. Don’t be too willing to take anyone’s opinion on any subject as though it were fact. You would be amazed at how many presumptions are accepted as “fact,” and the “Truth” is ignored by those who should and are required to know the “Truth.”
I don't presume to be the sharpest tool in the shed. I stand on the shoulders of many people greater than myself by attempting to bring together the best sources of reliable information, giving credit where credit is due. I try my best to research and connect the dots to get to the truth of the matter. Don't just take my word for it. Do your own homework to know the subject, and understand what you know, so you can speak knowledgeably with others. Keep your mind open to new ideas and information and then analyze it using the good common sense that God gave you to arrive at an informed conclusion. Question BOLDLY. Respect other people, their opinions, and their property. Vote for the Constitution does not necessarily endorse any comment or post herein and is intended only for information and research purposes only. I am not an attorney or certified financial advisor and nothing on this website shall be construed or relied upon as providing legal or tax advice.
Fair Use Notice Act Disclaimer: This website may contain copyrighted material of which use may not be authorized by the copyright owners. Under section 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. If you wish to use this material that goes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair use notwithstanding, I will comply with any copyright owner who wants their material removed, modified, or wants me to link to their website, or wants us to add their photo.
Fair Use Notice Act Disclaimer: This website may contain copyrighted material of which use may not be authorized by the copyright owners. Under section 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research. If you wish to use this material that goes beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Fair use notwithstanding, I will comply with any copyright owner who wants their material removed, modified, or wants me to link to their website, or wants us to add their photo.
|
Copyright © 2019-2024 Vote for the Constitution. All rights reserved.
|
Proudly powered by Weebly
|