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: 179
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.
Fuck judge Mary Ann VILE Lemmon. Ignorant bitch apparently thinks that our rights are given us by the CONstitution... That's where she's WRONG. They're given to us by the Creator, and I can't find anywhere in Scripture where He has a problem with people traveling. Vile Lemmon can do a little traveling - she can go straight to hell.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: innieway (#0)
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.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
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.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Before I get all bent out of shape about this decision, I have a question for the two resident lawyers on f4um. Is this a very narrowly defined decision that can only be used in this court case, or is this a case which can be used as a precedent to restrict the travel of the general public at a later date? If this case cannot be used as a precedent in other cases, then I have no problem with it. Having lived in and graduated from John McDonogh High School in New Orleans, I can understand why Gretna police would not allow people from New Orleans to cross the bridge. I can guarantee that many of those looking to cross the bridge were not interested in leaving the metro area but were instead inner- city thugs looking for better loot to steal.
Decisions by federal district court judges have no precedential value. They don't even bind the district court in question, or even the judge. They only have such persuasive force as other judges think they have. Now, if this decision is appealed, and the Fifth Circuit rules, that decision will have precedential force throughout the Fifth Circuit.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Now, if this decision is appealed, and the Fifth Circuit rules, that decision will have precedential force throughout the Fifth Circuit. I see. Thank you very much. With any luck they won't appeal and give the 5th Circuit an opportunity to rule on the matter.
The right to assemble is mentioned. Maybe they should have said they were on thier way to have abortions.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
amen!
Maybe they should have said they were on thier way to have abortions. Funny!
"Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters."__Harry J. Anslinger
Let me give her a little help. "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
On the contrary--I'm no big theologian or anything but isn't the Bible chock full of God allowing people to escape floods, famines, mean guys & thier armies, grasshopper attacks and such similar catastrophes.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
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). Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
U.S. District Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon said there is no right to travel within a state guaranteed by the Constitution.
#2. To: mirage, innieway (#1)
(Edited)
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.
#3. To: bluedogtx, aristeides (#0)
(Edited)
#4. To: Hayek Fan (#3)
#5. To: aristeides (#4)
Decisions by federal district court judges have no precedential value. They don't even bind the district court in question, or even the judge. They only have such persuasive force as other judges think they have.
#6. 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.
#7. To: innieway (#0)
Ignorant bitch apparently thinks that our rights are given us by the CONstitution... That's where she's WRONG. They're given to us by the Creator, and I can't find anywhere in Scripture where He has a problem with people traveling.
#8. To: wbales (#6)
The right to assemble is mentioned.
#9. To: innieway (#0)
Vile Lemmon can do a little traveling - she can go straight to hell.
#10. To: christine, innieway (#7)
given to us by the Creator, and I can't find anywhere in Scripture where He has a problem with people traveling.
#11. To: noone222 (#2)
This "judge" is full of shit.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest