[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The death of Yu Menglong: Political scandal in China (Homo Rape & murder of Actor) The Pacific Plate Is CRACKING: A Massive Geological Disaster Is Unfolding! Waste Of The Day: Veterans' Hospital Equipment Is Missing The Earth Has Been Shaken By 466,742 Earthquakes So Far In 2025 LadyX Half of the US secret service and every gov't three letter agency wants Trump dead. Tomorrow should be a good show 1963 Chrysler Turbine 3I/ATLAS is Beginning to Reveal What it Truly Is Deep Intel on the Damning New F-35 Report CONFIRMED “A 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon on 9/11” says Military witnesses on the scene NEW: Armed man detained at site of Kirk memorial: Report $200 Silver Is "VERY ATTAINABLE In Coming Rush" Here's Why - Mike Maloney Trump’s Project 2025 and Big Tech could put 30% of jobs at risk by 2030 Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis Fooling Us Badly With Psyops The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why) Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them America Is Reaching A Boiling Point The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani Man puts down ABC's The View on air Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: Judge finds no right to travel
Source: UPI
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 4, 2007
Author: Unknown
Post Date: 2007-04-04 03:36:27 by innieway
Keywords: None
Views: 183
Comments: 11

NEW ORLEANS, April 3 (UPI) -- A federal judge has dismissed a claim that local police violated the right to travel of New Orleans residents trying to get out after Hurricane Katrina.

Tracy and Dorothy Dickerson sued Gretna, the Gretna Police Department and the Jefferson Parish Sheriff's Office. They said they were not allowed to use the Crescent City Connection, which crosses the Mississippi River.

U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon said there is no right to travel within a state guaranteed by the Constitution. The judge also found that the Dickersons missed the deadline for certification as a class-action suit.

Poster Comment:

U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon said there is no right to travel within a state guaranteed by the Constitution.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 11.

#1. To: innieway (#0)

U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon said there is no right to travel within a state guaranteed by the Constitution.

This judge is correct. There is no right to travel intrastate guaranteed by the *FEDERAL* Constitution, Amendments 9 and 10 nonwithstanding - it is a state issue. If it was *interstate* travel, then the Feds could get involved.

mirage  posted on  2007-04-04   3:48:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This judge is correct. There is no right to travel intrastate guaranteed by the *FEDERAL* Constitution, Amendments 9 and 10 nonwithstanding - it is a state issue. If it was *interstate* travel, then the Feds could get involved.

Depending on the circumstances, the status of the parties attempting to travel within the state, the means by which the travel is undertaken, on a public or "private" road/bridge etc., there could be a legitimate argument for both sides.

The framers of the CON-stitution, it has been ruled by the courts, determined the right to travel so basic that it wasn't deemed necessary to specifically address it in the document, even though it was addressed in the Articles of Confederation.

Liberty is the ability to move about at ones own whim, whenever one chooses, to wherever one chooses.

To say that liberty is only protected by the feds when one is involved in interstate as opposed to intra-state travel is nonsense. Why then, would we have the road block cases and arbitrary check-point cases decided by federal courts ? If one has liberty, as all Americans believe they do, then to qualify it as being only federally protected when one attempts to remove oneself from one state to another is ludicrous.

There are a myriad of "right to travel" cases on the books that deal with intrastate travel, on public highways, on city streets, etc., without interference from state or federal authorities.

I agree that intrastate travel is a State matter to be heard in a State court and wouldn't originate in a federal court; however, should the State deprive one of his liberty it then becomes a matter that can be removed to the federal courts (Supreme Court) on appeal, directly from the State Supreme Court.

In the final analysis, we only have those "rights" that we can enforce. These days the feds and the States have formed a standing army that denies rights as basic as travel.

Liberty of movement is natural to a human being, otherwise we'd be born statues.

A thorough reading of "right to travel" cases demonstrates the incremental encroachment of the State and Federal Governments. However, two things are clear. The State has "plenary" authority to regulate commercial travel and far less authority to regulate "private" travel.

This quote (paraphrase) is quoted many times by both State and Federal Courts:

A citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and take his property thereon, either by wagon, carriage or automobile; this is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the citizen may not be deprived either by election or legislation. It is the duty of the authorities to insure the citizens safe conduct not inhibit it.

The waters appear to get muddied at the point wherein someone contracts with the State to "register a vehicle" or get a "license" etc., wherein they begin to operate "within this state" ... a phrase that may have more meaning than most suspect.

And, as innieway said: Fuck the judge ... better yet, fuck all the judges.

noone222  posted on  2007-04-04   6:50:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This "judge" is full of shit.

In the United States, no specific law guarantees this right, but the Supreme Court of the United States has held in a number of cases that such a right necessarily exists. In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the United States Secretary of State had refused to issue a passport, based on the suspicion that the plaintiff was going abroad to promote communism. Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court:

The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt with the right of interstate travel most recently in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states: the right to enter one state and leave another, the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Article IV, §2), and for those who become permanent residents of a state, the right to be treated equally to native born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause).

http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Freedom_of_movement

wbales  posted on  2007-04-04   13:44:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 11.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 11.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]