Kansas Counties' Whoredom is Hoarding Millions
"City and county lobbyists are flooding the state capitol, pressuring legislators not to grant Kansans property tax relief. They tell legislators that restrictions on valuations or tax increases will lead to service cuts, as though every penny they spend is necessary.
However, research by Kansas Policy Institute (which owns The Sentinel) shows the state's 35 largest counties and the 25 largest cities were sitting on more than $5 billion in cash reserves" . . . . read the rest of the criminal activity here;
https://sentinelksmo.org/cities-counties-5-billion-in-cash-reserves/
The Law Must Consider Whether You Are DRIVING, OPERATING, Or TRAVELING. Which Are You?
By law, Driving and Operating must involve commerce in some way, as in you are being paid to drive and/or operate a commercial vehicle, or you are transporting merchandise for commercial sale. If you are simply moving from place to place as a private person, you are a Traveler by law.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1179532693750726
In Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 (1930), the Virginia Supreme Court explicitly recognized the operation of a personal automobile on public highways as a fundamental right rather than a mere privilege. The Court emphasized that individuals have a constitutional right to use public roads, and this right cannot be arbitrarily denied by the state.
Key points from the decision:
Fundamental Right: The Court held that traveling by automobile is an extension of the common-law right to travel, which is a fundamental liberty.
Not a Privilege: The right is inherent and cannot be treated as a mere license that can be revoked at the discretion of state authorities without due process.
Limitations: While the Court acknowledged that the state can regulate for safety and public welfare (e.g., reasonable traffic regulations), it cannot arbitrarily restrict or deny the right to travel.
This case has been frequently cited in discussions of constitutional rights to travel and the limits of state authority over personal mobility, often in conjunction with broader liberty interests under the Due Process Clause.
The crucial principle highlighted in Thompson v. Smith: The Virginia Supreme Court made clear that a fundamental right cannot be transformed into a privilege that requires the state's permission. In other words, the right to travel is inherent and belongs to the individual.
Licensing or permitting this right (like requiring a driver's license to exercise the right to drive) cannot be used to arbitrarily revoke or condition the right.
The state may regulate for safety (reasonable traffic laws, speed limits, vehicle standards), but it cannot convert a fundamental liberty into a discretionary privilege that can be denied without due process.
This reasoning is often summarized as: "Fundamental rights exist independently of government permission; the state may regulate, but it cannot grant or withhold them at will."
Here is the key exact language from Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 (1930) that is most commonly quoted regarding the right to travel on public highways:
"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. 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 purposes of life and business. 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."
And immediately following that, the court clarified the limits of regulatory power: "The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but the city may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances to exercise it."