Established in Washington State in 2019, Right2travel.com is a website dedicated to clearing up the details of DRIVING VS. TRAVELING, the so called myth that the people do not need a drivers license to travel in (drive for non-commercial use) their privately owned automobiles on the highways if they are not engaged in commerce; using their vehicle as a common or contract carrier, or a for hire vehicle such as a taxi service.
To clear up or debunk the so called myth of traveling vs. driving. Secondly to encourage our representative governing officials to follow the law and be watchful to not encroach on the people's constitutionally protected rights, as it is by law and custom that most public servants are to swear a solemn oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. For the public officials that are not required to take an oath, they as well ...cannot violate provisions of the supreme law of the land.
Vision: For the people of the states to not be charged to exercise our constitutionally protected rights and to have our public officials knowledgeable on the right to travel so that this basic and fundamental constitutionally protected right as well as others will not be denied in our American courts.
"Although there have been recurring differences in emphasis within the Court as to the source of the constitutional right of interstate travel, there is no need here to canvass those differences further. All have agreed that the right exists. Its explicit recognition as one of the federal rights protected by what is now U.S.C. s 241 goes back at least as far as 1904. United States v. Moore, C.C., 129 F. 630,633. We reaffirm it now. " U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." Murdock v. Com. of Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
"...the assertion of Federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22 (1923)
"to punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort" United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 372 (1982)
"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." Boyd vs. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886)
“No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882)
“Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 471-485 (1928) (Dissenting opinion from Mr. Justice Brandeis)
Right2travel.com Copyright © 2019-2021 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED