Exposing the Myth – Sovereign Citizens – SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON,

SHAPIRO vs. THOMSON, 394 U. S. 618 April 21, 1969 . Further, the Right to TRAVEL by private conveyance for private purposes upon the Common way can NOT BE INFRINGED. No license or permission is required for TRAVEL when such TRAVEL IS NOT for the purpose of [COMMERCIAL] PROFIT OR GAIN on the open highways operating under license IN COMMERCE.

Now let’s look at this case and you tell me where this text can be found?

It does express that the right to travel is a fundamental right, but that does not mean that one cannot place reasonable limitations on certain methods of travel.

“The constitutional right to travel from one State to another . . . occupies a position fundamental to the concept of our Federal Union. It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized.”

It also observes

Since the classification here touches on the fundamental right of interstate movement, its constitutionality must be judged by the stricter standard of whether it promotes a compelling state interest. Under this standard, the waiting period requirement clearly violates the Equal Protection Clause. [Footnote 21]

Footnote 21 reads:

We imply no view of the validity of waiting period or residence requirements determining eligibility to vote, eligibility for tuition-free education, to obtain a license to practice a profession, to hunt or fish, and so forth. Such requirements may promote compelling state interests on the one hand, or, on the other, may not be penalties upon the exercise of the constitutional right of interstate travel.

Sloppy. Who has found these cases and why has noone done proper research into them?