2d 588, 591. "The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. The corporation of the United States has lied to us to get as much money as they can from the citizens the corporation believes belongs to them. WASHINGTON The Supreme Court, which has said that police officers do not need a warrant to enter a home when they are in "hot pursuit of a fleeing felon," ruled on Wednesday . However, like most culturally important writings, the Constitution is interpreted differently by different people. If you truly believe this then you obviously have never learned what a scholarly source is. 376, 377, 1 Boyce (Del.) Anyone who thinks that driving uninsured and unlicensed is just trying toake a unreasonable argument but I promise if they had someone hit them and harm their child or leave them disabled their opinion would be much different. 3rd 667 (1971) The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel long the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. in a crowded theater or that you can incite violence. If [state] officials construe a vague statute unconstitutionally, the citizen may take them at their word, and act on the assumption that the statute is void. - Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). Please select all the ways you would like to hear from Lead Stories LLC: You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. And who is fighting against who in this? Chris Carlson/AP. I wonder when people will have had enough. Get tailored legal advice and ask a lawyer questions. [I]t is a jury question whether an automobile is a motor vehicle[. Co., 100 N.E. (1st) Highways Sect.163 the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all. , Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781 Every Citizen has an unalienable RIGHT to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210. 21-846 argued date: November 1, 2022 decided date: February 22, 2023 887. With that I shall begin with my opinion and some history about Saint Ignatius of Loyola. 351, 354. The public is a weird fiction. 2023 We Are Change | Website by Dave Cahill. offense; North Dakota subsequently suspended his drivers' license when the test returned positive. He wants you to go to jail. You don't think they've covered that? Demonstrators rally near the Supreme Court and the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on June 24, 2021 in support of H.R. Daily v. Maxwell, 133 S.W. For years now, impressive-looking texts and documents have been circulated online under titles such as "U.S. Supreme Court Says No License Necessary to Drive Automobile on Public Highways/Streets," implying that some recent judicial decision has struck down the requirement that motorists possess state-issued driver's licenses in order to legally operate vehicles on public roads. KM] & The fact-checking site Snopes knocked the alleged ruling down, back in 2015, shortly after it began circulating. If you believe your rights have been unjustly limited, you may have grounds for legal action.An experienced legal professionalcan provide advice and assistance when it comes to ensuring you are able to fully exercise your rights. ; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions. Supreme Court on Wednesday put limits on when police officers pursuing a fleeing suspect can enter a home without a warrant. Social contracts cant actually be a real thing. Brinkman v Pacholike, 84 N.E. WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that police officers may stop vehicles registered to people whose driver's licenses had been suspended on the assumption that the driver was the. WASHINGTON The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a Pennsylvania school district had violated the First Amendment by punishing a student for a vulgar social media message sent while she. 186. ), 8 F.3d 226, 235" 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. . ; Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784 the right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference is a fundamental constitutional right -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158 Cal.Rptr. For the trapper keepers y'all walk around with, you sure don't interpret words very well. a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S.Ct. Just because you have a right does not mean that right is not subject to limitations. 351, 354. The Supreme Court on Thursday narrowed the scope of a federal cybercrime law, holding that a policeman who improperly accessed a license plate database could not be charged under the law.. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A.2d 118, 120; 95 NH 200 Motor Vehicle: 18 USC Part 1 Chapter 2 section 31 definitions: (6) Motor vehicle. So, I agree with your plea but not your stance. - The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways", 10) The term "used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit. While many quote Thompson V Smith,(1930) regarding travel it also says, It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will. If rules are broken or laws are violated, the State reserves the right to restrict or revoke a persons privilege. Doherty v. Ayer, 83 N.E. 3; 134 Iowa 374; Farnsworth v. Tampa Electric Co. 57 So. 662, 666. And this is not meant for the author of this article in particular. The law does not denounce motor carriages, as such, on public ways. H|KO@=K U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets. United States v Johnson, 718 F.2d 1317, 1324 (5th Cir. Traffic is defined when one is involved in a regulated commercial enterprise for profit or gain. Supreme Court in the 1925 case of Carroll v. United States,7 and provides that, if a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a vehicle has evidence of a crime or contraband located in it, a search of the vehicle may be conducted without first obtaining a warrant. They have an equal right with other vehicles in common use to occupy the streets and roads. to make money or profit) then you don't need a license to travel within the United States, also if that is the case, then you would need a driver's license and insurance to even purchase a vehicle. The decision stated: In terms of U.S. law, your right to travel does not mean you have a right to drive or to a particular mode of travel, i.e., a motor vehicle, airplane, etc. Under this constitutional guaranty one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.". Co., 100 N.E. 4F@3)1?`??AJzI4Xi``{&{ H;00iN`xTy305)CUq qd Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. The Decision Below Undermines Law Enforcement's Efforts To Promote Public Safety. If you drive without a license and insurance and you cause an accident on public roads, you are LIABLE and can be sued and put in jail. Your arguing and trying to stir more conspiracies and that's the problem. . Berberian v. Lussier (1958) 139 A2d 869, 872, See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963). 485, 486, 239 Ill. 486; Smiley v. East St. Louis Ry. 232, "Thus self-driven vehicles are classified according to the use to which they are put rather than according to the means by which they are propelled" - Ex Parte Hoffert, 148 NW 20. The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to make an investigative traffic stop after running the license plate of a vehicle and learning that the owner's driver's license has been revoked, even if the officer is unsure that the owner is driving the vehicle. Idc. Cecchi v. Lindsay, 75 Atl. A. Other right to use an automobile cases: - EDWARDS VS. CALIFORNIA, 314 U.S. 160 - TWINING VS NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 - WILLIAMS VS. Traffic infractions are not a crime. People v. Battle Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right., Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). 677, 197 Mass. App. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a "statute." A farmer has the same right to the use of the highways of the state, whether on foot or in a motor vehicle, as any other citizen. This case was not about driving. This button displays the currently selected search type. Like the right of association, it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." One of the freedoms based in the Constitution is our freedom of movement and subsequent right to travel. (Paul v. Virginia). For information about our privacy practices, please visit our website. In fact, during the 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022 events combined, Clerks of Court held more than 200 events and helped more than 35,000 . LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; You will see a big picture as to how they have twisted the laws to do this to us. Lead Stories is a U.S. based fact checking website that is always looking for the latest false, misleading, deceptive or The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions. The case stemmed from several Republican-led states (including Texas) and a few private individuals . 241, 28 L.Ed. Unless you have physically called the Justices of the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT, and asked each and everyone of them if the Headline Posted on Paul LeBreton site is Correct, then you have no right to tell people that it's not true. "The RIGHT of the citizen to DRIVE on the public street with freedom from police interference, unless he is engaged in suspicious conduct associated in some manner with criminality is a FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT which must be protected by the courts." Hasn't there been enough proof throughout many many years that they could care less about us and more than not play on our trust for them use it in their favor just to get what they want. In Thompson v Smith - SCOTUS | Last updated November 08, 2019. In respect to license and insurance I have to actually agree it should be required. The decision if the court was that the claim lacked merit. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. We have agents of this fraud going around the country fleecing the people under fraud, threat, duress, coercion, and intimidation, sometimes at the point of a gun, to take their hard earned cash and to make the elite rich beyond belief, while forcing good law abiding people to lose their livelihood, and soon to steal their very bank accounts to prop up the big banks once again. Will it be only when they are forced to do so? . Donnolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540; Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. The buzz started again in January of 2020 when a woman shared a link to a fake story from 2015 with Facebook users on the "Restore Liability For the Vaccine Makers" page. You THINK you can read the law and are so ill informed. inaccurate stories, videos or images going viral on the internet. 848; O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. -International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle, 251 P. 120, 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. Because roads and highways are public infrastructure and operating a vehicle poorly has the potential to harm others and their property, state governments are within their rights to require citizens to have a driver's license before operating a vehicle on public roads, and states do require drivers to be properly licensed. ), 8 F.3d 226, 235 19A Words and Phrases Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). So, let us start with your first citation: Berberine v Lassiter: False citation, missing context. This was a Rhode Island Supreme Court decision, and while quoted correctly, it is missing context. In other words, the court held that although the use of public roads is a right which citizens enjoy, local authorities may nonetheless regulate such use (including imposing a requirement that motor vehicle operators obtain licenses) so long as such regulations are reasonable, not arbitrary, and apply equally to everyone. The owner of an automobile has the same right as the owner of other vehicles to use the highway,* * * A traveler on foot has the same right to the use of the public highways as an automobile or any other vehicle. Simeone v. Lindsay, 65 Atl. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurances., Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. The United States Constitution provides the legal basis for many of the rights American citizens enjoy. Please prove this wrong if you think it is, with cites from cases as the author has done below. delivered the opinion of the Court. SCOTUS has several about licensing in order to drive though. They said that each person shall have the LIBERTY provided in the 5th AMENDMENT to travel from state to state on the INTERSTATE with the full protection of DUE PROCESS! hbbd``b`n BU6 b;`O@ BDJ@Hl``bdq0 $ If you want to verify that the supreme court has made a ruling about something, go to supremecourt.gov and search for it. Supreme Court says states may not impose mandatory life sentences on juvenile murderers. People v. Horton 14 Cal. a person detained for an investigatory stop can be questioned but is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest.Justice White, Hiibel Automobiles have the right to use the highways of the State on an equal footing with other vehicles. Cumberland Telephone. 157, 158. Miller vs. Reed, in the 9th Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. 157, 158. The automobile may be used with safety to others users of the highway, and in its proper use upon the highways there is an equal right with the users of other vehicles properly upon the highways. Contact a qualified traffic ticket attorney to help you get the best result possible. The Supreme Court said in U.S. v Mersky (1960) 361 U.S. 431: An administrative regulation, of course, is not a statute. A traveler on foot has the same right to use of the public highway as an automobile or any other vehicle. at page 187. (archived here). Spotted something? Talk to a lawyer and come back to reality. Please try again. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. The Fourth Amendment ordinarily requires that police officers get a warrant before . U.S. Supreme Court says No License NecessaryTo Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely, U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary, To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets, No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely, YHVH.name 1 1 U.S. SUPREME COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURT CITATIONS PROVING THAT NO LICENSE IS NECESSARY FOR NORMAL USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE ON COMMON WAYS, "The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. if someone is using a car, they are traveling. It came from an attorney who litigates criminal traffic offenses, which driving without a license is a misdemeanor of the 2nd degree in most states. Persons may lawfully ride in automobiles, as they may lawfully ride on bicycles. No recent Supreme Court ruling has in any way challenged the legality of a requirement for driver's licenses. The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation. Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 256; Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98 Wash 516, Willis vs. Buck, 263 P. l 982; Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 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. A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle. Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. Driver's licenses are issued state by state (with varying requirements), not at the federal level or according to federal requirements. Draffin v. Massey, 92 S.E.2d 38, 42. Learn more about Mailchimp's privacy practices here. I fear we don't have much longer to wait for a total breakdown of society, and a crash of the currency. "We hold that when the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is the . However, a full reading of the referenced case, Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 Va: Supreme Court 1930 (available via Google Scholar) presents that inaugural quote in an entirely different context: The right of a 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 his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. You'll find the quotes from the OP ignore the cases/context they are lifted from. endstream endobj 946 0 obj <>stream Bouviers Law Dictionary, 1914, p. 2961. Hendrick v. Maryland235 US 610 (1915) endstream endobj 943 0 obj <>/Metadata 73 0 R/Outlines 91 0 R/Pages 936 0 R/StructTreeRoot 100 0 R/Type/Catalog>> endobj 944 0 obj <>/Font<>/ProcSet[/PDF/Text]>>/Rotate 0/StructParents 0/Tabs/S/Type/Page>> endobj 945 0 obj <>stream 20-979 Patel v. Garland (05/16/2022) had previously checked a box on a Georgia driver's license application falsely stating that he was a United States. The validity of restrictions on the freedom of movement of particular individuals, both substantively and procedurally, is precisely the sort of matter that is the peculiar domain of the courts. Comment, 61 Yale L.J. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help. So if you refuse to read the 10th AMENDMENT to see that in our Bill of Rights that it says anything not specifically laid out in the constitution is up to the states to decide. 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 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. Co., 24 A. Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 RIGHT -- A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them. He The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation., Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. wKRDbJ]' QdsE ggoPoqhs=%l2_txx^_OGMCq}u>S^g1?_vAoMVmVC>?U1]\.Jb|,q59OQ)*F5BP"ag8"Hh b!9cao!. %PDF-1.6 % QPReport. App. The right to travel (called the right of free ingress to other states, and egress from them) is so fundamental that it appears in the Articles of Confederation, which governed our society before the Constitution.. Co., 24 A. Kent v. Dulles, the 5th amendment, the 10th amendment, and due process. Gun safety advocates, however, emphasize that the court's ruling was limited in scope and still allows states to regulate types of firearms, where people . 0 The. Kent vs. Dulles see Vestal, Freedom of Movement, 41 Iowa L.Rev. A Kansas deputy sheriff ran a license plate check on a pickup truck, dis-covering that the truck belonged to respondent Glover and that Glover's driver's license had been revoked. Some citations may be paraphrased. I would say rather that we have the responsibility to see to it that our opinionis right, the way God sees it. As I have said many times, this website is here for the express purpose of finding solutions for the big mess we are in here in America, and articles are published from several authors that also have freedom in America as their focus. Some citations may be paraphrased. Those who have the right to do something cannot be licensed for what they already have right to do as such license would be meaningless., City of Chicago v Collins 51 NE 907, 910. If someone is paid to drive someone or something around, they are driving. The administrator reserves the right to remove unwarranted personal attacks. The high . I wonder when the "enforcers" of tyranny will realize they took an oath to the Constitution before God, and stop their tyranny? WASHINGTON (CN) The Supreme Court on Monday held it does not violate the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to pull over a car because it is registered to a person with a revoked license, so long as the officer does not have reason to believe someone other than the owner is driving the car. The court sent the case back to the lower . EDGERTON, Chief Judge: Iron curtains have no place in a free world. The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the RIGHT to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the Constitutional guarantees. hVmO0+84#!`tcC(^-Mh(u|Ja$h\,8Gs)AQ+Mxl9:.h,(g.3'nYZ--Il#1F? f URzjx([!I:WUq[U;/ gK/vjH]mtNzt*S_ 41. The deputy pulled the truck over because he assumed that Glover was driving. Saying "well that's just the law" is what's wrong with the people in this country. 778, 779; Hannigan v. Wright, 63 Atl. Because the consequences for operating a vehicle poorly or without adequate training could harm others, it is in everyone's best interest to make sure the people with whom you share the road know what they are doing. Words matter. It is sometimes said that in America we have the "right to our opinion". 861, 867, 161 Ga. 148, 159; Holland v. Shackelford, 137 S.E. "No State government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. 26, 28-29. When anyone is behind the wheel of a vehicle capable of causing life-changing injury and/or death it is the right of the state to protect everyone else from being hurt or killed and them have no financial responsibility or even if they are able to be sued never pay. Only when it suits you. Salvadoran. 23O145 argued date: October 3, 2022 decided date: February 28, 2023 CRUZ v. ARIZONA No. That decision said life without parole should be reserved for "the rarest of juvenile offenders, those . There is no supreme court ruling confirming or denying a "right to drive" Without this requirement, the state puts themselves in legal jeopardy because the constituents can sue the state for not sufficiently vetting persons operating vehicles to make sure they were aware that the person who just killed 20 people was not capable of operating said vehicle safely. A license means leave to do a thing which the licensor could prevent. Blatz Brewing Co. v. Collins, 160 P.2d 37, 39; 69 Cal. Please keep the discussion about the issues, and keep it civil. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that police cannot always enter a home without a warrant when pursuing someone for a minor crime. This site might have references but I read all of the stuff I said to in the beginning nowhere did it say driving is a right! Vehicles are dangerous and people die and are left disabled so what your saying just drive and hope nothing happens and If it does then to bad? 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of. " Posted by Jeffrey Phillips | Jul 21, 2015 |, The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You're actually incorrect, do some searching as I am right now. Atwater v. Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the subject is arrested for driving without a seatbelt.The court ruled that such an arrest for a misdemeanor that is punishable only by a fine does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. 35, AT 43-44 - THE PASSENGER CASES, 7 HOWARD 287, AT 492 - U.S. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 2 2 "A highway is a public way open and free to any one who has occasion to pass along it on foot or with any kind of vehicle." Schlesinger v. City of Atlanta, 129 S.E. Here is the relevant case law, affirmed by SCOTUS. "Our goal is to create a community of truth-seekers and peacemakers who share a commitment to nonviolent action," the site says. 3d 213 (1972). After doing a search for several days I came across the most stable advise one could give. A seat belt ticket is because of the LAW. [d;g,J dqD1 n2h{`1 AXIh=E11coF@ dg!JDO$\^$_t@=l1ywGnG8F=:jZR0kZk"_2vPf7zQ[' ~')6k Bottom line - REAL, flesh and blood humans have a right to travel WITHOUT permission or a license. U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 3 "The word 'operator' shall not include any person who solely transports his own property and who transports no persons or property for hire or compensation." Some people interpret this right as meaning that they do not need a driver's license to operate a vehicle on public roadways, but do state and federal laws agree with that interpretation? We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all those requirements that are known as the law of the road. Swift v City of Topeka, 43 U.S. Supreme Court says No License Necessary To Drive Automobile On Public Highways/Streets No License Is Necessary Copy and Share Freely YHVH.name 4 Kansas 671, 674.