View Single Post
  #3  
Old July 21st 05, 01:06 AM
proffsl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
>
> The right of locomotion means--literally--the right to move oneself.


Give this person a cigar! You are correct! And, among all the various
manners of locomotion possible, the US Supreme Court has specifically
recognized as a Right only the certain types of locomotion "ordinarily"
used on any given stretch of Public Right of Way.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one
place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal
liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the
territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by
other provisions of the Constitution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
270 (1900) -
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...&invol=270#274

And, if other extraordinary manners of locomotion obstruct with the
locomotion ordinarily used on a particular stretch of Public Right of
Way, that extraordinary manner of locomotion may rightfully be
prohibited on that particular stretch of Public Right of Way.


> One can freely do that with their own legs, as well as any wheeled/non-motor
> vehicle of their choice (e.g., bicycle, skateboard, inline roller-skates)...


You are, in fact, quite mistaken. Walking, bicycling, skateboarding
and inline roller-skating are rather extraordinary manners of
locomotion used on our Public Highways, which can be, and indeed often
are, rightfully prohibited because they obstruct with the locomotion
ordinarily used on Public Highways, each upon which we have a Right
ONLY to the locomotion ordinarily used on it.

Nowhere is walking, bicycling, skateboarding or inline roller-skating
specifically recognized as a Right on Public Highways! I find it quite
peculiar that you would assert that these rather extraordinary manners
of locomotion on Public Highways are a Right when there not
specifically recognized, but would deny the Right of Locomotion
Ordinarily used on Public Highways when it IS specifically recognized.

The US Supreme Court has specifically recognized ONLY the Locomotion
Ordinarily used on any particular stretch of Public Right of Way.
Today, that Ordinary Locomotion on Public Highways is, of course, the
motor vehicle. But, you deny the use of a motor vehicle on Public
Highways is a Right, because the use of a "motor vehicle" on Public
Highways isn't specifically recognized as a Right, and despite the fact
that the Locomotion Ordinarily used on Public Right of Ways IS
specifically recognized.


> subject to any additional restrictions about wheeled/non-motored
> vehicles in their respective area.


Something which is a Right is not subject to restriction nor
prohibition. Walking on Public Highways can be prohibited because it
obstructs the locomotion ordinarily used there, that being the motor
vehicle. Motor Vehicles on Public Sidewalks can be prohibited because
they obstruct the locomotion ordinarily used there, that being walking.
But, on both Public Highways and Public Sidewalks, the locomotion
ordinarily used there is a recognized Right and therefore CAN NOT be
prohibited.

We have a Right to use Public Highways, Roads, Sidewalks, Paths, and
other Public Right of Ways. And, on each, we have the Right to use the
Locomotion Ordinarily used on that particular Public Right of Way.

We have the Right to use Public Highways, and the locomotion ordinarily
used on Public Highways at the time, regardless if that Public Highway
runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not.

We have the Right to use Public Sidewalks, and the locomotion ordinarly
used on Public Sidewalks at the time, regardless if that Public
Sidewalk runs parallel with other Public Right of Ways or not.

We have the Right to use Public Right of Ways, and the locomotion
ordinarly used on those particular Public Right of Ways at the time,
regardless if that Public Right of Way runs parallel with other Public
Right of Ways or not.


> However, when extended to a multi-ton motor vehicle that can injure or
> kill oneself and/or others if not properly controlled--driving is properly left
> as a privilege rather than an unalienable right.


Another reason a particular manner of locomotion may be prohibited is
if it poses an unacceptable level of danger or risk to the Rights of
others. If, as it would appear, you would claim the motor vehicle
poses an unacceptable level of danger or risk to the Rights of others,
it must be outright prohibited for EVERYONE. One CAN NOT obtain a
license to Endanger the lives or property of others. But, clearly, as
the motor vehicle IS the locomotion ordinarily used on Public Highways,
the level of danger they pose must be acceptable. Otherwise, if it
weren't, it wouldn't be the locomotion ordinarly used.

Ads