"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. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta." Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
The right to travel is a constitutionally protected right in America, its oldest known origins
came from the Magna Charta also known as the 'Great Charter' established in 1215 a.d.. The right to travel appears next in the Articles of Confederation 1777, ratified on March 1, 1781, the Articles of Confederation served as the United States' first constitution which of course was later replaced with our U.S. constitution.
The right to travel is next recognized through the U.S. Constitution's Privileges & Immunities clause Article IV. Section 2. Clause 1. and by Constitutional amendments such as the 14th. The right to travel is actually not specifically mentioned once in the U.S. Constitution categorizing it as a non-enumerated right which is equally protected just as the enumerated ones. Next the constitutional case law has solidified the right to travel in the U.S. Supreme court opinions affirming the people's right to travel as the law of the land as well as in the state supreme courts. From the law of the land and to conform with it,... the right to travel has been written into state session laws, state motor vehicle codes and federal acts.
Magna Charta signed 6-15-1215 A.D.
(42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.
Confirmatio chartarum. Lat. Confirmation of the Charters. A statute passed in 25 Edw. I., whereby the Great Charter is declared to be allowed as the common law; all judgments contrary to it are declared void; copies of it are ordered to be sent to all cathedral churches and read twice a year to the people; and sentence of excommunication is directed to be as constantly denounced against all those that, by word or deed or counsel, act contrary thereto or in any degree infringe it. 1 Bl. Comm. 128, Black's Law Dictionary 6th Ed. page 298
Articles of Confederation - Article 4 Section 1 - Ratified on March 1, 1781.
‘The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free ingress and egress to and from any other state, * * *’
U.S. Constitution Article IV. Section 2. Clause 1. (aka the Comity clause)
The Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of Citizens of the Several States.
U.S. Supreme Court establishing the right to travel nationally in multiple case opinions below:
No. 1.) Thurlow v. Com. of Mass., 46 U.S. 504 (1847) the' License Cases'
No. 2.) Smith v. Turner, 48 U.S. 283 (1849) the 'Passenger Cases'
No. 3.) Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867)
"If the right of passing through a State by a citizen of the United States is one guaranteed to him by the Constitution, it must be as sacred from State taxation"....‘Living as we do under a common government, charged with the great concerns of the whole Union, every citizen of the United States from the most remote States or territories, is entitled to free access, not only to the principal departments established at Washington, but also to its judicial tribunals and public offices in every State in the Union. . . . For all the great purposes for which the Federal government was formed we are one people, with one common country. *49 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. And a tax imposed by a State, for entering its territories or harbors, is inconsistent with the rights which belong to citizens of other States as members of the Union, and with the objects which that Union was intended to attain. Such a power in the States could produce nothing but discord and mutual irritation, and they very clearly do not possess it.’
No. 4.) Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274, 21 S.Ct. 128, 45 L.Ed. 186 (1900)
"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."
No. 5.) U.S. v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920)
In all the states, from the beginning down to the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, the citizens thereof possessed the fundamental right, inherent in citizens of all free governments, peacefully to dwell within the limits of their respective states, to move at will from place to place therein, and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom, with a consequent authority in the states to forbid and punish violations of this fundamental right.
No. 6.) Packard v. Banton, 264 U.S. 140 (1924)
"The streets belong to the public and are primarily for the use of the public in the ordinary way. Their use for the purposes of gain is special and extraordinary, and, generally at least, may be prohibited or conditioned as the Legislature deems proper."...."A distinction must be observed between the regulation of an activity which may be engaged in as matter of right, and one carried on by government sufferance or permission, since in the latter case the power to exclude altogether generally includes the lesser power to impose conditions, and may justify a degree of regulation not admissible in the former."
No. 7.) Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925)
"The right to travel interstate by auto vehicle upon the public highways may be a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States. Compare Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L. Ed. 745. A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause."
No. 8.) Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)
"The conclusion that the right of free movement is a right of national citizenship stands on firm historical ground. If a state tax on that movement, as in the Crandall case, is invalid, a fortiori a state statute which obstructs or in substance prevents that movement must fall."
No. 9.) Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 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. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta."
No. 10.) Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497 (1961)
Though I believe that ‘due process' as used in the Fourteenth Amendment includes all of the first eight Amendments, I do not think it is restricted and confined to them. We recently held that the undefined ‘liberty’ in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment includes freedom to travel. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125-127, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118—1119, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204. Cf. *517 Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160, 177, 178, 62 S.Ct. 164, 169, 86 L.Ed. 119 (concurring opinion).
No. 11.) U.S. v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966)
"Right to interstate travel is right that Constitution itself guarantees and is constitutionally protected independent of Fourteenth Amendment....Although the Articles of Confederation provided that ‘the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State,' that right finds no explicit mention in the Constitution. The reason, it has been suggested, is 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. See Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270,...‘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.’... 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. "
No. 12.) Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
"In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution."
No. 13.) Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970)
"For more than a century, this Court has recognized the constitutional right of all citizens to unhindered interstate travel and settlement. Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492, 12 L.Ed. 702 (1849) (Taney, C.J.); Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 43—44, 18 L.Ed. 744 (1868); Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180, 19 L.Ed. 357 (1869); Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 62 S.Ct. 164, 86 L.Ed. 119 (1941); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757—758, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 1177—1178, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629—631, 634, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1328, 1329—1331, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969). From whatever constitutional provision this right may be said to flow,16 both its existence *238 and its fundamental importance to our Federal Union have long been established beyond question. "
No. 14.) Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)
"And it is clear that the freedom to travel includes the ‘freedom to enter and abide in any State in the Union,’ id., at 285, 91 S.Ct., at 345. Obviously, durational residence laws single out the class of bona fide state and county residents who have recently exercised this constitutionally protected right, and penalize such travelers directly. We considered such a durational residence requirement in Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, where the pertinent statutes imposed a one-year waiting period for interstate migrants as a condition to receiving welfare benefits. Although in Shapiro we specifically did not decide whether durational residence requirements could be used to determine voting eligibility, *339 id., 394 U.S., at 638 n. 21, 89 S.Ct., at 1333, we concluded that since the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right, ‘any classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutional.’ Id., at 634, 89 S.Ct., at 1331. This compelling-state-interest test was also adopted in the separate concurrence of Mr. Justice Stewart.
Preceded by a long line of cases recognizing the constitutional right to travel, and repeatedly reaffirmed in the face of attempts to disregard it, see Wyman v. Bowens, 397 U.S. 49, 90 S.Ct. 813, 25 L.Ed.2d 38 (1970), and Wyman v. Lopez, 404 U.S. 1055, 92 S.Ct. 736, 30 L.Ed.2d 743 (1972), Shapiro and the compelling-state-interest test it articulates control this case."
No. 15.) Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)
"The word “travel” is not found in the text of the Constitution. Yet the “constitutional right to travel from one State to another” is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757, 86 S.Ct. 1170, 16 L.Ed.2d 239 (1966). Indeed, as Justice Stewart reminded us in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969), the right is so important that it is “assertable against private interference as well as governmental action ... a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all.” Id., at 643, 89 S.Ct. 1322 (concurring opinion).
In Shapiro, we reviewed the constitutionality of three statutory provisions that denied welfare assistance to residents of Connecticut, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania, who had resided within those respective jurisdictions less than one year immediately preceding their applications for assistance. Without pausing to identify the specific source of the right, we began by noting that the Court had long “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.” Id., at 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322." Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)
Right2travel.com Copyright © 2019-2021 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED