[juliusbragg]

Thanks for the info,

I think you are correct…but, does it concern you that the language found in USC Title 22, 212 is the same language as found in USC Title 8?

Quote:

TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 4 > § 212

§ 212. Persons entitled to passport

No passport shall be granted or issued to or verified for any other persons than those owing allegiance, whether citizens or not, to the United States.

TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 1101

§ 1101. Definitions

(22) The term “national of the United States” means

(A ) a citizen of the United States, or

(B ) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.

With Regard to:

Quote:

Quote

“The only thing we should therefore be doing with regard to the passport, is not providing a SSN. And I’m here to tell you, they don’t even blink over that. They have provided passports to numerous acquaintances of mine without the disclosure of a SSN.”

I think I would still suggest using an attachment defining the term “citizen” to avoid presumption that one is a “national of the United States” or a “citizen of the United States” as defined in 8 USC

[juliusbragg]

Thank you for the clarity, you have provided insight to much of my confusion!!

However, because we rely so heavily on case law, can you help to explain the case law I have provided below, (preferably point by point) in the context of your responses to my previous questions:

“2. Did the 14th Amendment make the freed Negroes into a new class of citizen?
No. Equality mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment made them equal to the white man.”

and

4. If there are two classes of citizen, are they both equal in terms of rights?

CaseLaw:

Quote:

“The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment.”
[Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]
(from http://www.supremela…c/twoclass.htm)“It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual. ”
[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36][(1873) emphasis added]

NOTE:
########
char·ac·ter·is·tic (kār’ək-tə-rĭs’tĭk)
adj. Being a feature that helps to distinguish a person or thing;
########

“The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other of the state.”
[Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]
[(1874) headnote 8, emphasis added]

“We have in our political system a Government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own …. ”
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]
[(1875) emphasis added]

“One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.”
[McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]
[(1883) underlines added]

“A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens.”
[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 380]
[6 S. 602 (1889), emphasis added]

“The first clause of the fourteenth amendment of the federal Constitution made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the state in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other of the state.”
[4 Dec. Dig. ’06, p. 1197, sec. 11]
[“Citizens” (1906), emphasis added]

“There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person. ”
[Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155]
[48 S. 788, 791 (1909), emphasis added]

“There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States** and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the former without being the latter. “

[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823]
[(1949) headnote 5, emphasis added]

“A person may be a citizen of the United States** and yet be not identified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state.”
[Du Vernay v. Ledbetter ,61 So.2d 573, emphasis added]

“… citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted. ... citizens of the United States** … were also not thought of; but in any event a citizen of the United States**, who is not a citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal] Constitution.”
[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]
[emphasis added]

These cases seem to support the idea that, because the framers did not have Blacks in mind when the Constitution was written, that it became necessary (in the 1860’s) to make blacks a type of citizen comparable to, but not the same as, Constitutional “Citizens of the United States”. It also seems to support that, because this new class of citizen was not the same as, or equal to, Constitutional “Citizens” of the United States”, that certain elements of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not apply to “National Citizens” aka “citizens of the United States” in the same manner that it applied to “State Citizens” aka “Citizens of the United States”.

Can you at least see how this logic has me confused?

Why do you think the change in Capitalization occurred from the original Constitution to the 14th Amendment? See:

“No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.”

and:

“No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”

and:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

and:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;–to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;–to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;–to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;–to Controversies between two or more States;– between a State and Citizens of another State,–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

and:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

AND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS:

“AMENDMENT XI

Passed by Congress March 4, 1794. Ratified February 7, 1795.

Note: Article III, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 11.

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”

“Note: The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C.” http://www.archives….transcript.html

Then, all of a sudden, the 14th Amendment changes Citizen to “citizen”, coincidentally (or not) when a “new class” of citizen was created.

As SEDM points out

“…Capitalization is therefore always relative to who is writing the document, which is usually the Sovereign and is therefore capitalized.”
http://sedm.org/Samp…Conventions.htm

ALSO:

See Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, pages 1078-1079.

“privileges and immunities clause. There are two Privileges and Immunities Clauses in the federal Constitution and Amendments, the first being found in Art. IV, and the second in the 14th Amendment, Sec. 1, second sentence, clause 1. The provision in Art. IV states that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the Several States,” while the 14th Amendment provides that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” [capitalization as occurs]

See:

The Civil Rights Act, 14 U.S. Stats. at Large, p. 27,

“all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens of every race and color shall have the same right in every state and territory of the United States to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens.”

Partially from http://www.supremela…nald/vol1-5.htm

PLEASE note that I am NOT trying to muddy up the water here, but instead I am trying to make a valid argument backed by fact and law, (as you have suggested) to a contrary position.

Thanks

[juliusbragg]

I have been reading WHY A NATIONAL, for my 5th time, for the past two days. Although this may seem like I am beating a dead horse, I want to make sure that I thoroughly understand this topic, as it is the most important topic there is. I have a few questions that I hope you can answer to finally clarify this. I’ll try to keep these to ‘yes or no’ questions for clarity.

1. Did the 14th Amendment make the freed Negroes equal to the white man?
2. Did the 14th Amendment make the freed Negroes into a new class of citizen?
3. If so, is this new class of citizen called a “citizen of the United States”?
4. If there are two classes of citizen, are they both equal in terms of rights?
5. Is a person born in Swains Island and living in one of the 50 states a constitutional citizen?
6. Is a person born in the District of Columbia and living in one of the 50 states a constitutional citizen?
7. Is a person born in one of the 50 states and living in the District of Columbia a constitutional citizen?
8. Can one be both a constitutional citizen and a statutory citizen at the same time?
9. Is there any significance to the capitalization of “Citizen” as found throughout the Constitution and “citizen” as found in the 14th?
10. Does the term “United States” as used in the 14th Amendment change meanings throughout the amendment? In other words does “United States” in Sec. 1 have the same meaning that it does in Sec. 4 of the 14th?

I apologize for what must seem like a complete mis understanding, but this has been the only topic that I have not been able to completely wrap my head around. I don’t know if it is because of the whole “second class of citizen” phrase, or my fear of the phrase “citizen of the United States” in general, or my concern over the capitalization that is so important in federal statutes, but again I am not afraid to ask questions if I truly don’t understand.

NOTE::::::::

It was always my understanding that the 14th Amendment was the creation of the “Federal citizen”, and that the courts and congress recognized (or are suppose to recognize) the difference between the Constitutional “Citizen of the United States”, (with the CAPITAL “C”, which are also known as state Citizens, and the Constitutional Federal “citizen of the United States” with the lower case “c”. Under this concept, the (constitutional) “citizen” of the United States”, aka “Federal citizen”, is automatically a statutory citizen, while the (Constitutional) “Citizen of the United States” must elect to become a statutory citizen.

This idea is further bolstered by the fact that the original constitution was never repealed, which was clearly written with the intent that white men were above women and minorities. The freed slaves for example werent the “We the People” of the Constitution. Im not sure that by adding an amendment without repealing something else that the entire intent of the Constitution can be changed. For this reason, it seems the 14th Amendment HAD to create a second and different class of citizen, one that was subject to “the jurisdiction thereof” and not “subject to their jurisdiction”, making a constitutional “citizen of the United States” different from a constitutional “Citizen of the United States” for whom the Constitution was originally and actually written.

 “The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the 7th Amendment…and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment…have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the 14th Amendment…and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the 5th Amendment…and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the 6th Amendment…it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the 5th Amendment, and trial by jury guaranteed by the 6th Amendment, were not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the 14th Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the 14th Amendment.”
[Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99]

Because this was what I had learned before finding FG.org, I want to make sure that my understanding is exact.

[juliusbragg]

California is where I am a resident, I mean domicilled, I mean currently living… So I am most familiar with the codes here.

In California, its very clear, and I will lay it out in order:

The California Constitution at Art XII, sec. 3 states:

SEC. 3. Private corporations and persons that own, operate, control, or manage a line, plant, or system for the transportation of people or property, the transmission of telephone and telegraph messages, or the production, generation, transmission, or furnishing of heat, light, water, power, storage, or wharfage directly or indirectly to or for the public, and common carriers, are public utilities subject to control by the Legislature. The Legislature may prescribe that additional classes of private corporations or other persons are public utilities.

Here it is clear that the state of California has the authority to regulate “systems” of transportation of people or property, AND common carriers. As we know “Transportation” and “Carrier” are terms of commerce:

[“Transportation. The movement of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047.” Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.

Carrier: Individual or organization engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire. Black's law pg 194]

With this in mind, it is easy to understand that the first “motor vehicle” codes were for the regulation of street cars:

(My personal thought is that the term “motor vehicle” at one time specifically meant a vehicle with an electric motor…I have always wondered why they (automobiles)are called 'motor' vehicles even though they don't have a motor, but rather an engine. I think this is because the first vehicles to be regulated under these codes were in the 1800's before the automobile had even been created and while electric 'motor' trollys, omnibus, and street cars were being implemented.)

Now we get to the current California Code:

CVC 2

The provisions of this code, insofar as they are substantially the same as existing provisions relating to the same subject matter, shall be construed as restatements and continuations thereof and not as new enactments.

The CVC has used this provision since day one, which simply states that regardless of the tricky words we use in this code, it still only applies to the original subjects!

CVC 4

No action or proceeding commenced before this code takes effect, and no right accrued, is affected by the provisions of this code, but all procedure thereafter taken therein shall conform to the

provisions of this code so far as possible.

This pretty much says it all…if traveling is a RIGHT, then this code means nothing!

Well, what happens in California if we DO decide to get a license or registration?

CVC 17459

The acceptance by a resident of this state of a certificate of ownership or a certificate of registration of any motor vehicle or any renewal thereof, issued under the provisions of this code, shall

constitute the consent by the person that service of summons may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of the ownership or operation of the vehicle.

CVC 17460

The acceptance or retention by a resident of this state of a driver's license issued pursuant to the provisions of this code, shall constitute the consent of the person that service of summons

may be made upon him within or without this state, whether or not he is then a resident of this state, in any action brought in the courts of this state upon a cause of action arising in this state out of his operation of a motor vehicle anywhere within this state.

I wonder how many California drivers realize that they have consented to ANY citation that they ever get?? A 'summons' is a notice to appear, aka a 'ticket', or 'citation'. So, in California by having a license and/or registration you automatically agree to a citation…this is why things like “refused for fraud” wont (may not) work if you are licensed or registered, because their is no fraud, you consented to the very ting you are now claiming as a fraud. Now any ticket you take to court must be a blatant violation by the officer.

Lets continue with the CVC. READ closely!

CVC 415

(a) A “motor vehicle” is a vehicle that is self-propelled.

(b ) “Motor vehicle” does not include a self-propelled wheelchair, motorized tricycle, or motorized quadricycle, if operated by a person who, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian.

(c ) For purposes of Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 3000) of Division 2, “motor vehicle” includes a recreational vehicle as that term is defined in subdivision (a) of Section 18010 of the Health and Safety Code, but does not include a truck camper.

Ok, so we now know that a “motor vehicle” will be self propelled, but what else? Is it required to be registered?? how could we tell from this definition…Look at what the next definition says:

CVC 260

(a) A “commercial vehicle” is a motor vehicle of a type required to be registered under this code used or maintained for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit or

designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.

(b) Passenger vehicles and house cars that are not used for the transportation of persons for hire, compensation, or profit are not commercial vehicles. This subdivision shall not apply to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3.

(c ) Any vanpool vehicle is not a commercial vehicle.

(d) The definition of a commercial vehicle in this section does not apply to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 15200) of Division 6.

OK, well that clears it up a bit…a Motor Vehicle will be self propelled, but is not a wheelchair or a truck camper, whereas a “commercial motor vehicle” is a “motor vehicle” that is REQUIRED to be registered Further it adds that passenger vehicles are NOT commercial vehicles, thus implying (at least) that they are not REQUIRED to be registered.

Lets keep looking, because the code always seems to apply to “motor vehicles” and not only “commercial vehicles”…

CVC 15210(p)(7)

“…In the absence of a federal definition, existing definitions under this code shall apply.”

Wait a second!! did this say “under this code?”…notice it didnt say “under this division, sub division, chapter, paragraph, section, or sub section, but instead stated “This Code”….

Just to be sure lets check to see if “this code” means anything specific:

CVC 10

Whenever any reference is made to any portion of this code or of any other law, such reference shall apply to all amendments and additions heretofore or hereafter made.

CVC 15

“Shall” is mandatory and “may” is permissive.

So CVC 15210p7 says that if there is a federal definition it MUST be used. The Chief Council for the CHP confirmed this in a telephone conversation…he read it 3 times and I asked him what that meant. He replied “it means that federal definitions trump state definitions.”

But maybe he was wrong, maybe the code doesnt have another word besides “this code” that they could have used.

CVC 11

“Section” means a section of this code unless some other statute is specifically mentioned and “subdivision” means a subdivision of the section in which that term occurs unless some

other section is expressly mentioned.

ok, so they could have used section or subdivision.

But what is the Federal Definition that is so important??

USC Title 18 USC 31:

“Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.

AHHHHHHHH, so the California Vehicle is Correct, a “commercial Vehicle” is a “motor vehicle” of a type “required to be registered.”

It is all coming together.

But surely officers will arrest someone for “driving without a license”

CVC 12801.5(e)

(e) Notwithstanding Section 40300 or any other provision of law, a peace officer may not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver, unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe the person driving is under the age of 16 years.

And since we are 'non residents', the CVC respects that aspect as well:

CVC 12503

A nonresident over the age of 18 years whose home state or country does not require the licensing of drivers may operate a foreign vehicle owned by him for not to exceed 30 days without

obtaining a license under this code.

Before we even allow the police to talk to us, shouldnt we confirm that they are actually a police officer?

Cal Govt. Code

1460. Every officer with whom official bonds are filed shall carefully keep and preserve the bonds. He shall give certified copies thereof to any person demanding copies, upon being paid the

same fees as are allowed by law for certified copies of papers in other cases.

So in closing, it is important to remember, that if you display plates on your private automobile, the officer has a reasonable cause to suspect that you have already consented to his stop and citation under CVC 17459, 17460.

It is also important to remember that when you are 'pulled over' you are “arrested”, that is you are not free to go!!!

If you DONT have plates, the officer may only ARREST YOU (pull you over) if he has a warrant, he witnesses you commit a “crime”

“…infractions are not crimes and the rule forbidding successive prosecutions of a defendant is not applicable when an infraction is one of the offenses involved.” People v. Battle (1975) 50 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1 [123 Cal. Rptr. 636] fn. [1b] Proceedings on infractions are not attended by the same constitutional safeguards as those attending felony or misdemeanor prosecutions. The limitation on an accused's right to jury trial on infractions has withstood constitutional attack upon the rationale that Legislature did not intend to classify infractions as crimes. People v. Sava (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 935, 233 Cal. Rptr. 694

or you are engaged in felonious activity….BUT wait, in America there is a 4th way to be arrested…Voluntary consent. You only need to pull over for a “lawful signal”..what is lawful?

“The Defendant makes a prima facie case of unlawful arrest when he establishes that arrest was made without a warrant, and burden rests on prosecution to show proper justification. People v. Holguin (1956) 145 Cal. App. 2d. 520 [302 P.2d. 635]”

The California State Legislature has provided the authorization for a peace officer to make a warrantless seizure for alleged violation of the CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE at §40300 only!!

Sorry this is so long…enjoy!

[juliusbragg]

There are a few tells in the Georgia code:

Title 40, Section 40-5-142

(19) 'Motor vehicle' means a vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer propelled or drawn by mechanical power used on highways, or any other vehicle required to be registered under the laws of this state, but does not include any vehicle, machine, tractor, trailer, or semitrailer operated exclusively on a rail.

Ok, so Motor Vehicle seems to be about everything…but whats this?

Title 40, Section 40-8-77

(a) As used in this Code section, the term 'private passenger automobile' shall mean a four-wheel motor vehicle designed for carrying ten passengers or less, not for hire, for use on public roads and highways, and not designed for use as a dwelling or for camping, provided that the term 'private passenger automobile' shall not include a multipurpose vehicle, which is, for the purposes of this Code section, defined as a motor vehicle, except a trailer, designed to carry ten passengers or less and constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation.

The courts also say:

The term `motor vehicle' is different and broader than the word `automobile.'”

City of Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 NE.2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232

“A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.” International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120

Like most other states, the Georgia Constitution allows for the regulation of “public utilities” ie, street cars, taxis, common carriers, etc.

“SECTION I.

Paragraph I. Public Utility Tariffs and Charges. The power and authority of regulating railroad freight and passenger tariffs and of charges of public utilities for their services, of preventing unjust discriminations, and requiring reasonable and just rates of freight and passenger tariffs and of charges of public utilities, are hereby conferred upon the General Assembly, whose duty it shall be to pass laws from time to time, to regulate such tariffs and charges, to prohibit unjust discriminations by the various railroad and public utilities of this State, and to prohibit said railroads and public utilities from charging other than just and reasonable rates and to enforce the same by adequate penalties, provided, nevertheless, that such power and authority shall never be exercised in any way to regulate or fix charges of such public utilities as are or may be owned or operated by any county or municipality of this State; except as provided in this Constitution.

Black's Law Dictionary defines a passenger vehicle as “An instrument of conveyance used in transporting passengers by land, water, or air.”

and transportation as: “Transportation. The movement of goods or persons from one place to another, by a carrier. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 14 S.Ct. 1125, 38 L.Ed. 1047.” Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition.

As you can imagine, the definition of “carrier”, as found in black's law, once again is a term of commerce:

Carrier: Individual or organization engaged in transporting passengers or goods for hire. Black's law pg 194.

and with the Supreme Courts stating:

“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.

“… For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion.” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516

“The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” Thompson vs. Smith, supra.; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

Conclusion,

Under the Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 10, the “right” of the people to contract is protected. If the owner of an automobile to be used for private travel should voluntarily apply for a certificate of title and register the automobile as a “motor vehicle” then the law properly “presumes” that the “owner's intent” is to engage in transportation and the requirements of the Vehicle Code apply.