The Doctrine of Constitutional Estoppel

[Soulution]

Lastly, I want to point out that this doctrine of constitutional estoppel seems to explain an inconsistency in case law surrounding constitutional rights v. gov granted privilges.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. United States

"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore." Murdock v. Pennsylvania

Given the above examples, and the rest of the case law that supports these decisions, it is safe to say that constitutional rights cannot be converter, traded or otherwise supplemented for government privileges. Now, looking at other case law on the right to travel:

"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

"The right to operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege, it is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions." Adams v. City of Pocatello

"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..." Thompson v. Smith; Teche Lines v. Danforth

Again, given the above examples and the rest of the case law, it is safe to say that the right to travel is a constitutional right. However, absent the Constitutional Estoppel doctrine, it would appear as if the case law is contradicting one another because some makes clear that rights cannot be converted, while others say that the right to travel is a right, and yet most still run into the issue of the courts telling Americans that they don't want to hear the defendant mention their constitutional right.

So what's going on?? Well, in light of the Constitutional Estoppel Doctrine, it is now obvious that the individual has availed himself to a statutory benefit effectively creating an estoppel on his rights barring him from invoking them in the court room! It is NOT that we have traded our right to travel for a driving privilege; it is that we have barred ourselves from invoking our right because we have enjoyed the benefits afforded to us in the motor vehicle code! This explains the seemingly inconsistent case law, and why courts ignore our rights when we try to assert them before the judge/magistrate.

From Blacks Law Dictionary revised fourth edition (1968) >>>
Attachment 5316

Attachment 5315

Attachment 5314