The Transition from “Chauffeur” to “Driver” Commercial Regulation and the Right to Travel

The Transition from “Chauffeur” to “Driver”: Commercial Regulation and the Right to Travel

The shift from the term “chauffeur” to “driver” in legal contexts represents more than just a change in terminology; it reveals a broader attempt by the State to regulate vehicle operation as a commercial activity. This transition directly impacts citizens’ fundamental right to travel freely, as upheld by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions. Below, we delve into how this shift affects your rights and why State laws often blur the lines between private travel and commercial activity.

Historical Evolution: From Chauffeur to Driver

Originally, the term “chauffeur” was used to describe those who operated vehicles for hire, typically working for businesses or wealthier individuals. These individuals were subject to licensing regulations, as their activities were explicitly commercial. However, as automobile use became widespread among the general public, States replaced “chauffeur” with “driver,” a term that applied universally to all vehicle operators, regardless of their activities.

This shift allowed States to regulate every individual using a motor vehicle under a commercial framework, even when those activities were private. By treating all vehicle operators as “drivers,” States impose commercial regulations on what should be private conduct.

Driving as a Commercial Privilege: Waiving the Right to Travel

According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a “driver” is defined as someone who operates a vehicle for hire or engages in commercial activity. This definition makes it clear that “driving” is considered a commercial act, and when States issue licenses, they are regulating commercial conduct. This aligns with the United States Code (49 U.S.C. § 301), which mandates registration only for “commercial motor vehicles” engaged in business or trade.

The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that every individual has the fundamental right to travel freely on public highways, unencumbered by licensing requirements when not engaging in commerce (e.g., Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969)). However, when individuals register their vehicles and obtain a driver’s license, they are, in effect, waiving this right and consenting to the State’s commercial regulations. By agreeing to these terms, the State treats all drivers as engaging in commerce, and the right to travel is exchanged for the commercial privilege of “driving.”

California’s Code: Differentiating Private Automobiles

California’s Vehicle Code provides further clarification. Under California Vehicle Code § 260, private automobiles not used for commercial purposes are considered “household goods” and, therefore, are not legally required to be registered. This provision indicates that vehicles used strictly for personal use should fall outside the realm of commercial regulation. Despite this, States often coercively impose registration requirements under the color of law, even for those who are merely exercising their right to travel privately.

Implications of Licensing and Registration

When you register your vehicle or obtain a driver’s license, you effectively enter into a contract with the State. This contract allows the State to regulate your use of the vehicle under the guise of commercial activity, even when the activity is private. The distinction between private travel and commercial driving is crucial; one is a right (traveling: private), and the other is a privilege (driving: commercial) that is granted and regulated by the State.

Conclusion

The shift from “chauffeur” to “driver” reflects the State’s approach to regulating all vehicle operation as a commercial activity. Supreme Court rulings affirm that private citizens have a right to travel without State interference when not engaged in commerce. However, by obtaining a driver’s license and registering a vehicle, individuals unknowingly waive their right to travel freely, replacing it with the privilege of “driving” as regulated by the State. Understanding this distinction, as outlined in California’s Vehicle Code and Supreme Court precedent, is critical to recognizing the State’s overreach in commercial regulation.

Leave your vote

846831 points
More

Don’t Stop Here

More To Explore

PHH Mortgage Corporation's Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

KEVIN WALKER ESTATE’S Conditional Acceptance Exposes PHH Mortgage’s Motion as Procedurally Defective, Deceitful and Dishonest, Unconstitutional, and Legally Void

PHH Mortgage Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. is a glaring example of procedural misconduct, constitutional violations, and a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice. The Plaintiffs have conditionally accepted PHH Mortgage’s non-compliant filing, thereby tendering a binding counteroffer that PHH must now rebut. PHH’s continued silence and failure to rebut the conditional acceptance further compounds their non-performance and dishonor. Additionally, the Defendants’ filing, prepared by Neil J. Cooper of HOUSER LLP, violates multiple-defendant court rules, misrepresents the law, displays incompetence and a war against the Constitution, and constitutes blatant obstruction of justice.

Further exacerbating this obstruction, critical documents remain missing from the court docket and record, preventing a full and fair adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ claims. This deliberate suppression of filings by the court and Defendants undermines due process, conceals key evidence, and constitutes judicial misconduct. The failure to properly record and acknowledge Plaintiffs’ filings further demonstrates systematic efforts to manipulate the proceedings in PHH Mortgage’s favor, reinforcing the need for immediate judicial correction, sanctions, and enforcement of Plaintiffs’ default judgment demands.

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage's ("loan servicer") Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

Judicial Misconduct in Riverside, California: Defendant PHH Mortgage’s (“loan servicer”) Baseless Motion and the Court’s Obstruction of Justice

PHH Mortgage’s Motion to Dismiss in Kevin Walker Estate, et al. v. PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al. exemplifies judicial overreach, procedural abuse, and a blatant disregard for constitutional rights. The motion falsely asserts that a trust cannot be represented by an attorney-in-fact, denying individuals their right to self-representation and claiming that only "attorneys at law" can act in court. This contradicts established legal principles, including the American Bar Association’s recognition of power of attorney as a legitimate instrument granting broad authority. Additionally, the court has obstructed the record by refusing to file Plaintiffs’ documents, prompting a writ of mandamus to expose the Riverside Federal Court’s misconduct. This case underscores a broader pattern of legal corruption, defamation, and deprivation of rights under the color of law.

Screen Shot 2025 02 19 at 1.22.22 PM

KEVIN WALKER Estate Demands Writ of Mandamus as Riverside Federal Court Engages in Corruption, Record Tampering, and Obstruction of Justice

The United States District Court, Central District of California (Riverside), stands accused of obstructing justice, tampering with records, and violating due process by unlawfully refusing to file and docket legitimate pleadings. Plaintiffs KEVIN WALKER ESTATE, et al., hav presented irrefutable evidence of judicial misconduct, calling for criminal prosecution, sanctions, and immediate enforcement. Despite proof of receipt, court officials have concealed filings, manipulated records, and obstructed legal proceedings, in direct violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1505, 1512, 1519, and 2071. With Pam Bondi CC’d on the correspondence, high-level authorities have been alerted to this grave constitutional violation that threatens judicial integrity and fundamental rights.

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.

error: Content is protected !!