Jack McLamb radio show archives at GCN Radio Network
It is with much deep sentiment that we write to advise that our much beloved friend and brother, Jack McLamb, passed away on Saturday, late afternoon, Indiana time. Though he is missed far more than any words can say, all who loved him are grateful to know that Jack is at last freed from the physical disabilities that increasingly plagued him, especially in these past few years. For the blessed relief that has come to him, we certainly have great reason to rejoice.
We now join with Jack’s wife, Angie, and all his family in extending our deepest gratitude to each and all of you who, by means of your continuous outpouring of love and prayer, provided such comfort and upliftment, particularly during this past very difficult week – - and we can’t help but feel somehow that all of that love and blessing was received personally by Jack as well, on the level of his inner spirit. Now that “Officer Friendly” is once again “back in the greatest of form” himself, be ready to receive the thanks and Blessings he’s likely to send you!
A number of memorial services are being planned for Jack, the most immediate one taking place this coming week in SW Indiana. Should anyone be close enough to that area and wish to attend, feel free to contact us, by way of this email address or by calling (208) 935-7852, for further information. Concerning the other memorials to be held, we will advise later on.
Thank you again, and may God richly bless you all.
Bob and Theresa Huebner
Jim and Jean Hisaw, and
Carol Asher
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb
(from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal
justice system have acted on the belief that traveling
by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a
citizen only after approval by their state government
in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other
words, the individual must be granted the privilege
before his use of the state highways was considered
legal. Legislators, police officers, and court
officials are becoming aware that there are court
decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a
privilege and therefore requires government approval in
the form of a license. Presented here are some of these
cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose
of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege,
but a common fundamental right of which the public and
individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago
Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "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 law right which he has under the
right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the
states have a common law right to travel, without
approval or restriction (license), and that this right
is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "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." Kent v.
Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel
is a well-established common right that does not owe
its existence to the federal government. It is
recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman
v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law
enforcement to believe, there is no room for
speculation in these court decisions. American
citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use
the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they
are not damaging or violating property or rights of
others. Government -- in requiring the people to
obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle
inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question --
is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's
common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this
subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs
and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and
those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have
been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts
state that case law is overwhelming in determining that
to restrict the movement of the individual in the free
exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of
those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and
most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful.
The revelation that the American citizen has always had
the inalienable right to travel raises profound
questions for those who are involved in making and
enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may
very well be this: If the states have been enforcing
laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would
seem that there must be some way that a state can
legally put restrictions -- such as licensing
requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle
registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few --
on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is
that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the
U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In
Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme
Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish
rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1
Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious
principles of common right and common reason are null
and void."
Would we not say that these judicial
decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no
lawful method for government to put restrictions or
limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other
cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and
reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name
of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved,
there can be no rule making or legislation which would
abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right
cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F
486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty
imposed upon one because of this exercise of
constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court
decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our
question - Can a government legally put restrictions on
the rights of the American people at anytime, for any
reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S.
Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United
States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and
the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the
Contrary not one word withstanding."
In the same
Article, it says just who within our government that is
bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before
mentioned, and the Members of the several State
Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers,
both of the United States and of the several States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this
Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is
ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by
officials? If we are to follow the letter of the law,
(as we are sworn to do), this places officials who
involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an
unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and
federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their
constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law
dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove
a right belonging to the people. These are:
- by lawfully amending the constitution, or
- by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.
Some of the
confusion on our present system has arisen because many
millions of people have waived their right to travel
unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of
the state. Those who have knowingly given up these
rights are now legally regulated by state law and must
acquire the proper permits and registrations. There
are basically two groups of people in this category:
- Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon
the highways of the state. Here is what the courts
have said about this: "...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...as a place for
private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a
vested right to use the highways of this state, but it
is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or
withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P
1073. There are many court cases that confirm and
point out the difference between the right of the
citizen to travel and a government privilege and there
are numerous other court decisions that spell out the
jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different
activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will
leave it to officers to research it further for
themselves.
- The second group of citizens that is
legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those
citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived
their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by
requesting placement under such jurisdiction through
the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle
registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other
words, by contract.) We should remember what makes
this legal and not a violation of the common law right
to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract
to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or
unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts
have said it is a clear violation of their rights.
This in itself raises a very interesting question.
What percentage of the people in each state have
applied for and received licenses, registrations and
obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by
their government that it was mandatory?
Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials
are just becoming informed about this important issue
and the difference between privileges and rights. We
can assume that the majority of those Americans
carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have
no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws
such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states
are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are
not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for
every police officer is to understand that the most
important law in our land which he has taken an oath to
protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and
city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes
all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a
particular state or local community conflict with the
supreme law of our nation, there is no question that
the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
Every police officer should keep the following U.S.
court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before
issuing citations concerning licensing, registration,
and insurance:
"The claim and exercise of a
constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
And as we have seen,
traveling freely, going about one's daily activities,
is the exercise of a most basic right.