To: Nelsonc@ncleg.net ; Almaa@ncleg.net ; email@example.com ; Waltc@ncleg.net ; Lorenec@ncleg.net ; Verlai@ncleg.net ; Earlj@ncleg.net ; Marvinl@ncleg.net ; Raymondr@ncleg.net
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 2:37 AM
Subject: House Bill 39
Dear Representatives who have introduced and cosponsored House Bill 39
...let him go on freedom rides-and try to understand why he must do so. - MLK
I am writing to ask you to immediately retract your sponsorship of House Bill 39. Perhaps you are not aware of the effect of the ammendment. It would prohibit the use of a motorcycle, which is currently recognized as an existing and acceptable method of conveyance, when traveling with any children under the age of 10. The proposed ammendment is oppressive and restricts rights to free movement using existing, acceptable methods of transportation. I believe such an ammendment would prove unconstitutional.
I do not know the intent and motivation of this proposal. If it is to further the creation of a plastic safety bubble society imposed by an overbearing government, please research and you will find there was one fatality of a child under ten years of age who was riding as a passenger on a motorcycle in the 10 years from 1994 to 2004, while there were many more automobile deaths of children under ten tears of age. I do not have the figures regarding schoolbuses, but I believe that number is also much higher than it is for motorcycles. To attempt to restrict an entire population by means of unconstitutional legislation in order to avoid one accident, however tragic, in the course of 10 years is ludicrous. It wrongfully discriminates against the use of a motorcycle as an acceptable form of transportation, which has the result of discriminating against a segment of the population who rely on that form of transportation.
I am a registered voter in North Carolina. The citizens did not elect you so that you can remove their rights to decide such matters which are of personal consequence. I am appalled by the ever increasing restrictions legislators feel compelled to introduce as legislation in order to remove rights of persons, particularly when there is no constitutional basis, and no need. Did any of you give this any thought before you agreed to cosponsor it?
TO TRAVEL IS A "RIGHT,"
NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED "PRIVILEGE "
U.S. REPORT UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON
CIVIL AND POLTICAL RIGHTS
Article 12 - Freedom of Movement
In the United States, the right to travel -- both
domestically and internationally -- is
constitutionally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court
has held that it is "a part of the 'liberty' of
which a citizen cannot be deprived without due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Zemel v.
Rusk, 381 U.S. 1 (1965).
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has
emphasized that it "will construe narrowly all
delegated powers that curtail or dilute citizens'
ability to travel." Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116,
Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:
- The "RIGHT" to travel is a part of the liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of the law under the 5th Amendment. (Emphasis added) See: Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125
- "The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
"The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579
"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