Purpose:
This Act is intended to safeguard the fundamental right to travel freely within the both the united 50 states of the Union located in the geographical location of North America and the United States (Art. 1 Sec. 8 Cl. 17-18) by establishing robust federal standards that prevent undue state interference in the regulation of privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles used for personal travel. This Act reaffirms that personal travel using privately-owned conveyances is a constitutionally protected liberty under the framework of a free republic, not to be burdened by arbitrary or excessive regulation from individual states.
Constitutional Foundations
Congress asserts that the right to travel is a constitutionally recognized right, integral to the structure of a free and mobile society. As articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125-126 (1958), âThe right to travel is a part of the âlibertyâ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.â This right to liberty encompasses unimpeded movement within and across state lines without arbitrary restrictions.
Historical Requirement for Regulation of Fundamental Rights
Regulatory measures that affect this fundamental right must satisfy both a historical tradition and the requirements for narrow tailoring and least restrictive means when addressing compelling state interests, as recently emphasized in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2129-2130 (2022). In Bruen, the Court held that any restriction on a fundamental right must be supported by historical precedent rooted in the Nationâs tradition, as well as a strict assessment that the regulation is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary burdens. This Act requires that state-imposed restrictions on personal travel adhere to these principles, with any regulation involving travel in privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles for personal use meeting the highest standards of constitutional scrutiny.
Republican Form of Government and Sovereignty of the People
This Act further enforces the Constitution of the United States of Americaâs guarantee under Article IV, Section 4, ensuring that each state maintains a Republican form of government. In such a government, as defined by Justices John Jay and James Wilson in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 458 (1793), the people are the ultimate sovereigns, and the governmentâs role is inherently subordinate to their rights. Justice Jay emphasized that âthe people are the sovereignâ and that in a republic, the sovereignâs only obligation is not to harm one another. This foundational principle mandates that the governmentâs primary role is to protect individual rights without imposing unnecessary preconditions on the exercise of those rights.
Thus, the imposition of licensing, registration, and insurance requirements on privately-owned vehicles used for personal travel constitutes an undue burden on this fundamental right, as it subjects sovereign individuals to preemptive restrictions and financial exactions without historical foundation or a compelling justification narrowly tailored to a legitimate state interest. There exists no historical precedent for such encumbrances on the right to use personal modes of conveyance, and any state action imposing these requirements lacks constitutional justification when assessed under the stringent standards articulated by the Supreme Court in Bruen.
Affirmation of Federal Oversight and State Accountability
Given that states have increasingly overreached in their regulatory authority, often imposing onerous restrictions on the right to travel without constitutional backing, this Act establishes federal oversight to ensure compliance with these constitutional protections. It is an affirmation that the right to travel is a bedrock of liberty within a republican form of government, safeguarded against state overreach by federal standards rooted in historical precedent and constitutional fidelity.
Section 1: Comprehensive Safeguarding of the Fundamental Right to Travel by Personal Vehicle
Congressional Declaration on the Right to Travel and the Sovereign Nature of Individuals in a Republic:
Congress hereby recognizes and reaffirms that the right to travel freely throughout the United States is a constitutionally protected liberty, essential to the Republic as guaranteed under Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America. In a republican form of government, sovereignty resides with the people; therefore, the right to personal mobility must remain unencumbered by undue state interference. The individual, acting as a sovereign, has the inherent right to move freely within the country, using privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles as an extension of their personal liberty and autonomy.
Preservation of the Right to Travel and Exemption from State-Imposed Prerequisites:
The use of privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles for personal travel constitutes a fundamental exercise of the right to liberty and movement. As such, Congress expressly prohibits states from imposing licensing, registration, mandatory insurance, or similar administrative conditions on the personal use of such vehicles for private travel. These prerequisites constitute pre-emptive regulatory encroachments on a right that should not require permission or registration with the state, nor should it be diminished by monetary or bureaucratic burdens absent a compelling, narrowly tailored justification.
A. Historical Context and Constitutional Foundation: Historical analysis shows no precedent at the Founding or during early American history for states to restrict the right of personal travel through tolls, taxes, or license requirements on non-commercial modes of conveyance. At no point did the Framers or early lawmakers suggest that states possessed the authority to impede an individualâs free movement by imposing such prerequisites on private conveyance. This Act, therefore, restores and reaffirms this foundational understanding, aligning with historical practice and original intent.
Requirement for Historical Precedent, Narrow Tailoring, and Least Restrictive Means in State Regulations:
In line with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), this Act mandates that any state regulation affecting the right to travel by personal, non-commercial vehicle must not only address a compelling government interest but must also meet rigorous constitutional scrutiny. Specifically:
A. Historical Precedent Requirement: Regulations imposed by states must have a clear and direct foundation in historical practice that aligns with the original understanding of constitutional freedoms. Any regulation that lacks this historical basis is presumed to be constitutionally overreaching.
B. Narrow Tailoring and Least Restrictive Means: States may only enact regulations that are narrowly tailored and represent the least restrictive means necessary to achieve a legitimate public safety interest. Financial exactions or regulatory requirements that serve merely as revenue-generating measures, or which create undue financial burdens on individuals exercising a constitutionally protected right, are hereby prohibited. The intent and application of any regulation must be transparent, directly related to safety, and not impose arbitrary or punitive costs on private individuals.
C. Prohibition on Licensing and Registration for Private Conveyance: As a matter of constitutional principle, states lack authority to license or require registration for private vehicles used for personal travel, as this creates an impermissible condition on a right that should remain free and unrestricted.
Limitations on Financial Burdens and State-Imposed Conditions of Access to Public Roads:
States shall not impose tolls, taxes, fees, or any financial exaction on privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles as a prerequisite for road access that infringes upon the right to travel. Any financial requirements must be directly tied to the proportional use of public roadways and limited strictly to the maintenance, safety, and infrastructure needs of these roadways.
A. Exclusive Allocation of Funds to Infrastructure Maintenance and Public Safety: All revenue generated from permissible charges, including tolls or road use fees, shall be allocated exclusively to public infrastructure, specifically for the construction, maintenance, and necessary upgrades of public roads. Such funds must not be diverted to general revenue or any purpose beyond public road infrastructure, ensuring that all financial burdens imposed serve only to sustain public resources rather than inhibit access.
B. Establishment of Fiduciary Standards for State Use of Funds: States shall maintain fiduciary responsibility in the application of any funds derived from vehicle-related charges. These funds must be employed in a manner consistent with what a reasonable person would deem necessary and proper for the construction, maintenance, and safety of public roads. Any misuse or misallocation of these funds beyond their stated purpose shall be subject to federal oversight and potential corrective action by the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee.
Federal Preemption Over State Regulation Inconsistent with Right to Travel Protections:
This Act explicitly preempts any state legislation, regulation, or administrative rule that conflicts with the right to travel as outlined herein. The purpose of this preemption is to ensure a uniform standard that prevents states from enacting arbitrary or overly burdensome regulations that compromise the fundamental right to travel. Such preemption underscores Congressâs role in safeguarding personal liberties under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) and its duty to ensure national unity and cohesion.
Declaration of a Republican Form of Government and the Rights of the Sovereigns without subjects:
The right to unimpeded travel is not merely a privilege but a critical component of the liberties protected within a Republican form of government. Drawing from the principles established by Chief Justice John Jay and Justice James Wilson in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), Congress emphasizes that the sovereignty of the people under a Republican government obligates the state to respect individual liberties and refrain from imposing preconditions on fundamental rights. In this context, Congress declares that state actions infringing upon the natural right to travel by personal vehicle contravene the republican principle that government exists to serve, not to rule over, free individuals.
Clarification of Non-Commercial Travel Exemption from State Regulation of Interstate Commerce:
Privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles used for personal travel shall not be classified as engaging in âinterstate commerceâ merely by virtue of their registration, licensing, or association with federal identification numbers or Social Security designations. This Act clearly delineates the boundaries of state authority, preventing states from treating personal travel as a commercial act subject to taxation or regulation under the guise of interstate commerce.
Section 1.2: Requirement for Historical Precedent, Narrow Tailoring, and Least Restrictive Means in State Regulations
Purpose: In line with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), this Act mandates that any state regulation affecting the right to travel by personal, non-commercial vehicle must not only address a compelling government interest but must also meet rigorous constitutional scrutiny. Specifically:
Historical Precedent Requirement:
Regulations imposed by states must have a clear and direct foundation in historical practice that aligns with the original understanding of constitutional freedoms. Notably, early American society did not impose licensing or registration requirements on personal modes of conveyance such as horse-drawn carriages or pedestrian travel, reflecting a societal consensus that individuals had an inherent right to move freely across public spaces without state-imposed preconditions. The lack of such restrictions during the Founding era exemplifies the presumption that personal travel should remain unrestricted and not subject to financial or bureaucratic barriers. Any regulation lacking a basis in this historical context is presumed to be constitutionally overreaching.
Founding Intent and Individual Liberty:
The Founding Fathers, in both their writings and debates, repeatedly emphasized the importance of personal liberties and limited government interference in citizensâ lives. Figures like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton expressed that the governmentâs role was primarily to secure, rather than infringe upon, individual freedoms. Nowhere in the writings of these early American legislators or legal scholars is there an argument supporting licensing or registration as prerequisites for personal travel. This Act restores and reaffirms the Foundersâ vision that government exists to protect inherent rights, not to impose prior conditions on their exercise.
Narrow Tailoring and Least Restrictive Means:
States may only enact regulations that are narrowly tailored and represent the least restrictive means necessary to achieve a legitimate public safety interest. Financial exactions or regulatory requirements that serve merely as revenue-generating measures, or which create undue financial burdens on individuals exercising a constitutionally protected right, are hereby prohibited. The intent and application of any regulation must be transparent, directly related to safety, and not impose arbitrary or punitive costs on private individuals.
Prohibition on Licensing and Registration for Private Conveyance:
As a matter of constitutional principle, states lack authority to license or require registration for private vehicles used for personal travel, as this creates an impermissible condition on a right that should remain free and unrestricted. In alignment with the historical precedent of non-interference in personal travel, states cannot impose requirements that transform a right into a regulated privilege.
(limited to 32,000) characters. I have 105,000+ characters in the word document ive created for this proposal.
Section 2: Federal Standards and Limitations on State Authority
Congressional Findings on Interstate Commerce and Non-Commercial Travel:
Congress finds that privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles used for personal travel do not constitute âinterstate commerceâ and therefore fall outside the regulatory purview traditionally reserved for commerce-related activities. This Act clarifies that such vehicles are exempt from regulatory frameworks designed to govern commercial activities, reaffirming that states cannot leverage commerce-based regulatory powers to infringe upon the fundamental right to personal mobility and travel.
Definition of Interstate Commerce for Personal, Non-Commercial Vehicles:
For the purposes of this Act, privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles engaged exclusively in personal travel shall not be classified as participating in âinterstate commerceâ by virtue of their registration, licensing, or association with federal identifiers, such as Social Security numbers. This distinction serves to prevent states from invoking commerce-related regulatory powers as a means of imposing undue burdens on personal travel.
A. Clarification of Non-Commercial Status: Congress expressly affirms that non-commercial travel, regardless of whether it crosses state lines, does not meet the constitutional or historical definitions of âcommerceâ as understood by the Framers. This non-commercial status inherently exempts personal vehicles from the commerce-based regulatory frameworks states typically apply to businesses or commercial activities.
Limitations on State-Imposed Financial Burdens Affecting the Right to Travel:
Congress acknowledges that while states have a legitimate interest in funding infrastructure, any financial burdens imposed on private, non-commercial vehicle owners must be carefully circumscribed. States may not impose tolls, taxes, fees, or financial exactions on personal vehicle owners that infringe upon the right to travel. Any permissible financial charges must be narrowly tailored to serve the direct, transparent purpose of road maintenance and infrastructure improvement.
A. Restriction on Revenue-Generating Practices Disguised as Safety Measures:
This Act prohibits the imposition of excessive or arbitrary charges under the guise of promoting âpublic safetyâ when such measures primarily serve revenue-generating purposes. Any financial charges levied by states must be demonstrably linked to direct and reasonable expenses related to the maintenance, repair, and construction of public roadways, specifically excluding general revenue generation or extraneous state expenses.
B. Historical Consistency and Constitutional Constraints:
Congress mandates that states adhere to historical precedents consistent with the Constitutionâs original intent. Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), state-imposed financial exactions related to the right to travel must meet historical tradition and cannot be justified unless they are the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest. Any deviation from these standards is considered an overreach and therefore subject to federal preemption and oversight.
Requirement for Exclusive Allocation of Travel-Related Fees to Infrastructure and Safety Needs:
To preserve the integrity of public trust in transportation infrastructure, all revenues generated from permissible charges on personal vehicles must be allocated exclusively to projects directly related to infrastructure maintenance, safety, or improvement. States are prohibited from redirecting these funds to unrelated programs or general revenue accounts. This ensures that all imposed fees, if any, serve only the function of sustaining safe and accessible roadways without restricting individual liberties.
A. Establishment of Fiduciary Standards for Use of Funds:
Funds collected from vehicle-related fees must be subject to fiduciary standards that align with the principles of public trust. A reasonable and prudent standard shall govern state allocations, whereby funds are used solely for essential and justifiable infrastructure needs as defined by the average citizenâs reasonable expectations. This measure ensures accountability and transparency in the use of public funds, aligning with principles of republican governance.
Prevention of Licensing and Insurance Requirements as a Condition of Travel:
States are precluded from imposing mandatory licensing, registration, or insurance requirements on privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles for the sole purpose of personal travel. Such requirements represent undue encumbrances on the right to travel and are inconsistent with the principles of a free society. This Act clarifies that these requirements constitute an impermissible condition upon the exercise of a constitutionally protected right, absent a compelling interest that cannot be achieved through less restrictive means.
A. Protection Against Administrative Overreach in Vehicle Regulation:
Recognizing the sovereign status of the individual, Congress affirms that states lack authority to require citizens to obtain licenses or registrations for personal vehicles as a prerequisite to travel. These preconditions effectively transform a right into a state-controlled privilege, which is incompatible with the foundational principles of individual liberty and sovereignty. Mandatory insurance requirements, as an added financial burden, are likewise prohibited for personal, non-commercial travel when imposed solely to exercise the right to travel.
Prohibition Against Using Civil Asset Forfeiture for Minor Infractions Related to Personal Travel:
To prevent abuses of power and ensure that citizens are not unduly deprived of their personal vehicles, this Act prohibits states from applying civil asset forfeiture laws to seize privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles in response to minor infractions or nonviolent offenses related to personal travel. Forfeiture actions can only occur upon a lawful conviction, and only when the offense involves clear and demonstrable harm to public safety.
A. Safeguards Against Arbitrary Seizure of Personal Property:
Recognizing that personal vehicles are often indispensable to an individualâs livelihood, Congress prohibits the use of forfeiture as a punitive or revenue-generating measure in cases that do not involve significant threats to public safety. This aligns with the principles of due process and protects citizens from arbitrary deprivation of property without substantive justification.
Establishment of Standards for the Use of Roadway Funds and Mandatory Transparency:
All funds collected through vehicle-related charges, including any permissible tolls or maintenance fees, must be transparently reported and subjected to federal oversight. This ensures that funds are exclusively used for purposes directly benefiting roadway safety, infrastructure upkeep, and public access.
A. Annual Reporting Requirements for States:
Each state shall submit an annual report to the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee detailing revenue generated from vehicle-related fees, with itemized breakdowns of expenditures. This report will be publicly accessible to ensure that all collected funds adhere to the standards of transparency and accountability.
B. Federal Oversight and Corrective Measures:
The Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee shall monitor state compliance with this Act and provide corrective recommendations if any state fails to allocate funds in accordance with these standards. Persistent non-compliance may result in federal action to withhold highway funds or impose other sanctions as deemed necessary to uphold the constitutionally protected right to travel.
Distinction Between Commercial and Non-Commercial Travel:
To reinforce the differentiation between private, non-commercial travel and activities that constitute commercial use, this Act affirms that the right to travel by privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles for personal purposes must be protected from undue regulatory interference. This right is separate and distinct from the regulatory framework that applies to commercial transportation activities, such as trucking, taxis, and other forms of for-profit conveyance.
A. Historical Foundation of Non-Commercial Travel Protections:
The early American transportation system, including the development of turnpikes, generally exempted private travelers from fees and restrictions applied to commercial operators. This historical precedent supports the understanding that personal travel for non-commercial purposes is a fundamental liberty, intended to remain unobstructed by the kinds of regulations typically imposed on commerce. Congress reiterates that states cannot invoke regulatory powers intended for commercial entities as a means to restrict the personal right to travel.
B. Exclusion from Interstate Commerce Regulations:
Commercial transportation, which engages in interstate commerce, may justifiably fall under more stringent regulatory scrutiny due to its for-profit nature and impact on public infrastructure. However, this distinction ensures that privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles, engaged solely in personal travel, remain free from such regulatory treatment. This principle prevents states from conflating the constitutionally protected right to personal travel with commercial activities subject to regulation.
By reaffirming the separation of commercial and non-commercial travel, this Act ensures that individuals exercising their right to personal mobility are not subject to regulatory requirements that are applicable to business activities. This distinction upholds the original intent of unobstructed travel for private citizens, aligned with historical precedents and constitutional protections.
Section 3: Establishment, Composition, and Governance of the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee
Purpose of the Committee:
The Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee (hereafter referred to as âthe Committeeâ) is established to monitor and ensure state compliance with the protections and limitations outlined in this Act. This Committee is entrusted with overseeing the equitable implementation of personal travel rights, ensuring that states adhere strictly to constitutional standards regarding the right to travel, and providing transparent oversight of revenue allocation for road infrastructure.
Composition and Appointment of Committee Members
A. Composition of the Committee:
The Committee shall consist of nine (9) members to ensure a balanced and representative body, drawing from a range of professional backgrounds and perspectives:
i. Three (3) members appointed by the Department of Transportation (DOT), representing federal interests and infrastructure expertise.
ii. Two (2) members elected by representatives of the automotive industry, specifically from private non-commercial vehicle associations, to provide an industry perspective while safeguarding non-commercial travel rights.
iii. Two (2) members representing civil liberties organizations, elected by non-profit advocacy groups focused on individual rights and constitutional protections.
iv. Two (2) members nominated and confirmed by the Senate, chosen from a pool of candidates nominated by constitutional law scholars with a demonstrated expertise in the principles of a republican form of government and the right to travel.
B. Qualifications for Appointment:
All committee members must possess relevant experience in fields related to transportation, law, civil rights, or public administration. Members must have no conflicts of interest with state revenue-generating activities tied to vehicle regulation, tolls, or civil asset forfeiture practices.
C. Term Limits:
Each member shall serve a term of four (4) years and may be reappointed or re-elected for no more than two consecutive terms. Staggered terms shall be implemented for the initial appointments to ensure continuity in the Committeeâs functions, with three members rotating out every two years.
D. Conflict of Interest and Ethical Standards:
Committee members must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and abide by federal ethics standards. Members shall not hold positions or financial interests in state departments or private entities that stand to benefit from the imposition of vehicle-related fees or regulations on non-commercial travel.
Responsibilities and Functions of the Committee
A. Annual Compliance Audit:
The Committee shall conduct an annual compliance audit of each state, assessing adherence to the provisions of this Act, especially concerning financial burdens imposed on non-commercial travel and the exclusive allocation of vehicle-related revenue to infrastructure and safety.
B. Review of State-Submitted Reports:
The Committee shall review and verify the annual reports submitted by each state, which detail vehicle-related revenue, expenditure breakdowns, and fund allocations. The Committee shall ensure that revenue is exclusively allocated to public roadway maintenance, safety, and improvement.
C. Corrective Action and Recommendations:
If a state is found to be in non-compliance, the Committee shall issue recommendations for corrective action. Should a state fail to implement these recommendations within a reasonable timeframe, the Committee has the authority to recommend federal corrective measures, including withholding federal highway funds or initiating federal audits.
D. Public Reporting and Transparency:
The Committee shall publish an annual report summarizing its findings, recommendations, and compliance status for each state. This report shall be made publicly available online to promote transparency and public accountability. The Committee shall also maintain a website where citizens can review state compliance records, submit complaints, and access resources regarding their right to travel.
Governance and Decision-Making Processes
A. Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson Election:
The Committee shall elect a Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson from among its members to serve as facilitators and representatives of the Committee. These positions shall have a term of two (2) years, renewable once, and shall be filled by majority vote among Committee members.
B. Decision-Making Process:
Decisions regarding compliance evaluations, corrective measures, and public reports shall be made by a majority vote (at least five out of nine members). In cases where consensus is needed for sensitive matters, the Chairperson may call for a supermajority vote (two-thirds of the Committee, or six members) to pass certain actions.
C. Quorum Requirements:
A quorum of at least six members is required to hold official meetings, conduct audits, or issue compliance findings. The Committee shall meet at least quarterly and more frequently if necessary to address urgent compliance or regulatory concerns.
D. Public Engagement and Hearings:
The Committee shall hold an annual public hearing where citizens, advocacy groups, and industry stakeholders can present concerns, propose reforms, or discuss the impact of vehicle-related regulations on personal travel rights. These hearings shall be accessible both in-person and via online platforms to ensure broad public participation.
Corrective Powers and Limitations of the Committee
A. Corrective Actions Available to the Committee:
The Committee is empowered to enforce compliance through various corrective measures aimed at ensuring adherence to constitutional protections for the right to travel, while maintaining a balanced approach to federal oversight. These actions include:
i. Mandated Compliance Audits:
The Committee may require additional audits for any state found in non-compliance with the Actâs provisions. These audits serve to monitor progress in implementing necessary corrections and ensure ongoing adherence to standards protecting personal travel rights.
ii. Public Notification of Non-Compliance:
In cases where a state continues to disregard the Actâs standards, the Committee shall issue a public notice outlining the nature of the stateâs non-compliance. This notice shall be prominently displayed on the Committeeâs website, encouraging public accountability and transparency in state regulatory practices.
iii. Mandatory Training Programs for State Officials:
The Committee may mandate that state regulatory officials and law enforcement personnel complete training programs focused on constitutional limitations related to personal travel rights. This training will emphasize the importance of protecting these rights within a republican form of government and clarify permissible regulatory boundaries.
iv. Conditional Federal Funding Adjustments:
As a final measure, the Committee may recommend the withholding of federal highway funds or related infrastructure grants for states that exhibit persistent or severe non-compliance. This step is reserved for cases where other corrective actions have not led to compliance and is intended to emphasize the serious nature of protecting constitutionally enshrined rights.
v. Mandated Compliance Audits:
The Committee may require additional audits for any state found in non-compliance with the Actâs provisions. These audits serve to monitor progress in implementing necessary corrections and ensure ongoing adherence to standards protecting personal travel rights.
C. Safeguards Against Federal Overreach:
The Committeeâs authority is explicitly limited to enforcing compliance with the constitutional protections outlined in this Act. Its role is not to micromanage or control state policy but to ensure that states respect individual rights to travel freely, as guaranteed by the Constitution. The following safeguards are in place to prevent overreach:
i. Focus on Constitutional Compliance:
The Committeeâs oversight is restricted to enforcing compliance with constitutional standards. It shall not interfere with state regulatory frameworks or decision-making processes beyond ensuring adherence to protections established under this Act.
ii. Regular Review of Corrective Measures:
All corrective measures, including any withholding of federal funds, must be reviewed annually to assess their necessity and proportionality. This review will ensure that any imposed measures remain aligned with the Committeeâs mandate to protect individual liberties without encroaching on state sovereignty unnecessarily.
iii. Transparent Reporting and Public Accountability:
The Committee shall publish a detailed explanation for any corrective action taken against a state, including the specific grounds for intervention. This transparency serves to clarify the Committeeâs actions to the public and allows for accountability in its decision-making process.
Section 3.1: Fiduciary Duty and Public Accountability
Fiduciary Responsibility to the Public
The Committee shall operate as a fiduciary body, with an explicit duty to uphold the rights and interests of the public as its âbeneficiaries.â This duty requires that all actions, policies, and expenditures be conducted in good faith, with the primary objective of protecting the constitutionally enshrined right to travel. The Committee must act with loyalty, care, and impartiality, prioritizing public interest above any other considerations.
Transparency and Public Reporting as Fiduciary Obligations
Just as trustees must report to beneficiaries, the Committee shall:
A. Prepare and publish quarterly reports detailing its findings, recommendations, and actions related to state compliance.
B. Hold biannual public forums where members of the public can review the Committeeâs performance, provide feedback, and express concerns. These forums shall be accessible both in person and virtually to ensure broad participation.
C. Create a digital transparency platform accessible to the public, which includes all reports, findings, meeting minutes, and communications regarding the Committeeâs activities. This platform will function as a central repository for citizens to stay informed and engaged.
Prohibition of Conflicts of Interest
Committee members are prohibited from engaging in any action or relationship that creates a conflict of interest, directly or indirectly. Members shall not hold positions, financial interests, or other affiliations with entities that benefit from state-imposed vehicle fees, licensing, registration, or civil forfeiture related to personal travel. All members shall submit annual disclosures of financial and professional interests to the Committeeâs ethics officer, appointed by the Chairperson with Committee approval.
Duty of Prudence in Financial Oversight
As fiduciaries, Committee members shall exercise prudent oversight over the use of funds generated from vehicle-related charges. This duty requires that all financial decisionsâsuch as recommending allocations of state-generated funds for road maintenanceâbe grounded in transparency and sound financial judgment. The Committee must ensure that such funds are used solely for the direct benefit of public infrastructure and the maintenance of safe and accessible roadways.
Section 3.2: Establishment of a Public Oversight Subcommittee
Formation and Purpose of the Public Oversight Subcommittee
A Public Oversight Subcommittee shall be established as a standing body within the Committee to serve as a watchdog and advisory board for the Committeeâs fiduciary activities. This subcommittee shall:
A. Monitor Compliance with fiduciary duties and transparency standards, reporting any violations or conflicts of interest.
B. Collect and Address Public Feedback by soliciting regular input from citizens and stakeholders. The Subcommittee will compile this input into actionable reports for the Committeeâs consideration and publish summaries of public feedback.
C. Review Compliance with the Republican Form of Government Guarantee
The Subcommittee will have a specific mandate to ensure that state vehicle regulations uphold the principles of a republican form of government, as guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4. This includes protecting citizensâ rights from arbitrary financial impositions and ensuring that state actions align with the principles of sovereignty and non-interference articulated by Justice Jay and Justice Wilson in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793).
Composition of the Public Oversight Subcommittee
B. Five (5) members, who shall not be current members of the Committee, appointed by a transparent selection process overseen by the Committeeâs ethics officer.
C. Diversity of Representation: Membership should reflect a balance of perspectives, including citizens with backgrounds in civil rights advocacy, constitutional law, infrastructure management, and the automotive industry.
D. Two-year renewable terms to maintain continuity while allowing for fresh perspectives.
Powers of the Public Oversight Subcommittee
A. Review Authority over all Committee actions, reports, and recommendations related to state compliance.
B. Recommendation Power to propose reforms, adjustments, or improvements to the Committeeâs operations and policies. These recommendations must be reviewed and voted on by the Committee within 60 days of submission.
C. Whistleblower Protection: The Subcommittee shall establish a secure process for citizens and Committee members to report any suspected violations, corruption, or undue influence within the Committee or related state agencies. The Subcommittee is authorized to investigate such claims and, if warranted, make recommendations for corrective action.
Section 3.3: Accountability Measures for the Committee and Subcommittee Members
Code of Conduct and Ethics Guidelines
The Committee and its Subcommittee shall adopt a formal Code of Conduct that outlines ethical standards, fiduciary obligations, and transparency commitments. All members must adhere to these guidelines, which will be available to the public on the Committeeâs website.
Periodic Independent Audits
Every two years, an independent auditor shall conduct a comprehensive review of the Committeeâs operations, financial management, and adherence to fiduciary duties. Audit findings shall be made publicly available and include recommendations for improving transparency, accountability, and adherence to constitutional standards.
Removal Process for Breach of Duty
Any member found in violation of their fiduciary duties, ethical standards, or conflict of interest policies shall be subject to removal. The removal process will be as follows:
A. A complaint may be initiated by any member of the Committee, Subcommittee, or the public.
B. The ethics officer will review the complaint and, if warranted, conduct an investigation.
C. Following the investigation, the ethics officer may recommend removal to the Committee. Removal requires a two-thirds majority vote by the Committee members.
Section 3.4: Citizen-Initiated Review Mechanism
Purpose: To empower citizens and ensure their role in maintaining the integrity of the right to travel, this section establishes a formal process through which individuals or organizations may request the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee to review specific state practices or regulations that may infringe upon the principles of this Act.
Eligibility for Submitting Review Requests:
A. Any U.S. citizen, permanent resident, or organization representing the interests of vehicle owners, civil liberties, or public welfare may submit a request for review.
B. Requests may be made on behalf of specific individuals who believe their right to travel has been unconstitutionally restricted, or on behalf of the general public if a state practice or regulation appears to systematically infringe upon the right to travel.
Submission Process:
A. Requests must be submitted in writing to the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee, either via an official online portal established by the Department of Transportation or by physical submission to a designated office.
B. The request should clearly detail the specific state regulation or practice in question, including:
i. A description of the alleged infringement on the right to travel.
ii. Any relevant documentation or evidence supporting the claim.
iii. If applicable, a description of any personal harm or infringement suffered by the requestor due to the state regulation or practice.
Review Criteria and Preliminary Evaluation:
A. The Committee shall conduct a preliminary evaluation of each request to determine if the issue raised has potential merit under the standards set forth in this Act, particularly focusing on:
i. Whether the state regulation or practice poses a financial, logistical, or other undue burden on the right to travel.
ii. Whether the regulation is narrowly tailored to a legitimate public safety purpose and aligns with historical precedent.
B. Requests that fail to present credible evidence or a clear link to the right to travel may be dismissed, with a written explanation provided to the requestor.
Formal Investigation Process:
A. For requests that meet the preliminary criteria, the Committee shall initiate a formal investigation, which may include:
i. Gathering additional evidence from the requestor, state officials, and third parties as needed.
ii. Conducting hearings, interviews, or consultations with relevant stakeholders, including constitutional scholars, industry experts, and public interest advocates.
iii. Reviewing comparable regulations in other states to assess the necessity and impact of the regulation in question.
B. The Committee will have the authority to issue subpoenas for records or testimony as necessary to complete the investigation.
Outcome of Review and Corrective Recommendations:
A. Upon completion of the investigation, the Committee shall issue a report detailing its findings and any recommendations for corrective action.
B. If the Committee finds that the state regulation or practice unjustly restricts the right to travel, it will issue a formal recommendation to the state in question, advising modification, repeal, or realignment of the regulation with the principles of this Act.
C. The Committee will monitor state compliance with its recommendations and may issue further recommendations or refer the matter to the Attorney General for enforcement if noncompliance persists.
Public Transparency and Accountability:
A. All reviews initiated through this mechanism and the resulting reports shall be made publicly accessible online, with any sensitive or personally identifying information redacted to protect privacy.
B. An annual summary of all citizen-initiated reviews, including the nature of the complaints, findings, and any actions taken, shall be included in the Committeeâs yearly report to Congress.
Safeguards Against Abuse of the Review Mechanism:
A. To prevent frivolous or vexatious requests, the Committee reserves the right to deny further review of requests from individuals or organizations that have repeatedly submitted unfounded claims, provided a documented warning has been issued.
B. Any denial of a request for review shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation, allowing the requestor to amend and resubmit if new evidence or justifications are provided.
Enhanced Public Engagement and Participation Mechanisms
To ensure transparency, accountability, and public trust in the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committeeâs operations, this section establishes additional pathways for citizens to engage directly with the Committeeâs review process. This engagement will serve as an essential mechanism for democratic oversight, allowing individuals and organizations to provide input on state compliance with the Act.
A. Public Engagement Sessions
i. The Committee shall hold quarterly public engagement sessions, accessible both in-person and via online platforms, where citizens can present concerns, submit testimony, and offer recommendations related to state regulations that may infringe upon the right to travel.
ii. During these sessions, the Committee will allocate time for open commentary, allowing participants to raise specific instances of potential state overreach and to voice broader concerns regarding travel-related policies.
iii. Each session shall include a segment dedicated to reviewing recent citizen-initiated complaints and providing updates on ongoing investigations, fostering transparency and public involvement.
B. Citizen Testimony in Review Processes
i. In cases where a formal investigation is initiated based on a citizen-initiated request, the Committee will invite affected individuals or their representatives to offer testimony.
ii. Individuals providing testimony may submit written statements, or appear in person or virtually, ensuring that all relevant perspectives are considered in the review.
iii. The Committee shall make accommodations for those unable to attend in person by allowing remote submissions or recorded statements, ensuring broad accessibility.
C. Public Notice and Comment Period
i. For major recommendations or corrective actions proposed by the Committee, a public notice and comment period of no less than 30 days shall be provided, allowing citizens and stakeholders to offer feedback before final recommendations are issued.
ii. All comments submitted during this period will be reviewed and considered by the Committee, with a summary of public feedback included in the final report or recommendation.
D. Digital Platform for Ongoing Public Engagement
i. The Committee shall maintain a digital platform for ongoing public engagement, allowing citizens to submit feedback, access resources on their rights under this Act, and view the status of current reviews.
ii. This platform will provide real-time updates on state compliance, summaries of recent investigations, and details of upcoming public sessions, fostering a transparent and informed citizenry.
E. Inclusion of Public Feedback in Annual Reporting
i. All input gathered through public engagement sessions, testimony, and comment periods shall be summarized and included in the Committeeâs annual report to Congress.
ii. This summary will outline recurring concerns raised by citizens, the Committeeâs response to public input, and any policy adjustments made in response to widespread feedback.
Section 3.5: Selection Process and Ethical Standards for Committee Members
Selection and Confirmation Process:
A. DOT Appointments: The three members appointed by the Department of Transportation shall be selected from senior officials with extensive experience in infrastructure policy and federal transportation oversight. These appointments shall be confirmed by the Secretary of Transportation.
B. Industry Representatives: The two members representing the automotive industry shall be chosen through a voting process conducted independently by members of private, non-commercial vehicle advocacy groups, with no requirement for state âregistrationâ or other state-controlled formalities. Nominees must demonstrate a commitment to upholding personal travel rights and a thorough understanding of industry implications.
C. Civil Liberties Representatives: The two representatives from civil liberties organizations will be chosen from candidates nominated by recognized non-profit advocacy groups. A transparent voting process within these organizations will determine the representatives, with emphasis on candidates who advocate for individual constitutional rights.
D. Senate-Confirmed Constitutional Scholars: The two members nominated by constitutional scholars must be approved by the Senate. Nominees must have demonstrated expertise in constitutional law, specifically regarding the republican form of government and the historical basis of the right to travel. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings will be held for confirmation.
Ethical Standards and Conflict of Interest Provisions:
A. Disclosure Requirements: All appointed members must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including financial ties to state agencies, private entities, or organizations involved in vehicle-related fees or regulatory activities.
B. Prohibition on Financial Interests: Members are prohibited from holding positions, investments, or interests in any entity that could financially benefit from the imposition of vehicle-related fees or regulations on non-commercial travel.
C. Ethical Conduct Agreement: Each member must sign an ethical conduct agreement, pledging to prioritize the public interest in safeguarding the right to travel over any organizational or personal gains. Violations of ethical standards will result in removal from the Committee, subject to a review process conducted by an independent ethics panel.
Section 3.6: Funding and Operational Provisions for the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee
Funding Appropriations and Budget Allocation
A. Congressional Funding Appropriation: Congress shall allocate dedicated funds for the establishment, staffing, and continued operation of the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee (the âCommitteeâ). Funding appropriations shall cover all necessary expenditures to ensure comprehensive oversight of state compliance with the standards set forth in this Act.
B. Biennial Budget Proposal and Review: The Committee shall submit a biennial budget proposal to Congress, detailing projected operational costs, staffing needs, technology investments, and other essential expenditures. Congress shall review and authorize funding on a two-year cycle, ensuring ongoing support while maintaining accountability in financial oversight.
C. Contingency Funding: In cases of emergency, unanticipated increases in workload, or expanded operational needs, the Committee may request supplemental funding from Congress. Any additional funding requests must be accompanied by a detailed justification outlining the specific need and anticipated impact on the Committeeâs effectiveness.
Operational Staff and Resources
A. Authorization for Personnel: The Committee is authorized to employ a full-time staff with expertise in transportation law, constitutional law, auditing, public administration, technology, and citizen advocacy. Staff may include legal advisors, auditors, data analysts, public outreach coordinators, IT specialists, and administrative support personnel.
B. Contracted Expertise: Where specialized knowledge or expertise is required, the Committee may contract with external consultants, industry experts, or academic researchers. Contracts shall be subject to federal procurement standards and prioritize vendors who demonstrate a commitment to the Committeeâs constitutional mission.
C. Technology and Infrastructure Investments: The Committee is empowered to acquire and maintain advanced technology systems to support its oversight responsibilities. This includes a secure digital platform for public access, records management software, cybersecurity measures to protect sensitive data, and digital tools for efficient auditing and reporting.
Public Outreach and Educational Resources
A. Citizen Awareness Campaigns: A portion of the Committeeâs budget shall be dedicated to public outreach, with the goal of educating citizens about their travel rights under this Act. Outreach efforts may include educational publications, social media campaigns, informational videos, and partnerships with civil rights organizations.
B. Public Inquiry Support Center: The Committee shall establish a publicly accessible hotline and online support center to respond to citizen inquiries, provide guidance on travel rights, and assist individuals in navigating state regulations. Staffed by trained support personnel, this service will also facilitate submission of citizen-initiated reviews and complaints.
C. Annual Public Awareness Report: An annual report on public engagement efforts shall be published, detailing the Committeeâs outreach activities, the impact of educational programs, and public feedback on travel rights. This report will be made available on the Committeeâs website for full transparency.
Compliance Monitoring and Audit Expenses
A. Audit Resources and Investigative Budget: Adequate funds shall be allocated to support the Committeeâs compliance audits, investigations, and on-the-ground inspections as necessary for effective state monitoring. This includes travel expenses, field equipment, and any other resources needed to ensure that audits are thorough, impartial, and fully compliant with federal standards.
B. State Audit and Inspection Protocols: The Committee shall develop and maintain standardized protocols for conducting state audits and inspections. These protocols will ensure consistency across investigations, safeguard against arbitrary or biased findings, and uphold the principles of due process and fairness.
C. Travel and Operational Costs: Travel expenses for Committee staff and contracted experts conducting state audits and public hearings shall be covered. Funding for these activities shall prioritize efficiency and cost-effectiveness while maintaining the thoroughness required to fulfill the Committeeâs mandate.
Annual Reporting Requirements to Congress
A. Comprehensive Annual Report: The Committee shall submit an annual report to Congress documenting all aspects of its operations, including:
i. Financial Summary: A detailed account of expenditures, revenue, and budgetary needs.
ii. Operational Achievements: Summaries of audits conducted, corrective actions issued, compliance reviews completed, and key findings regarding state adherence to this Act.
iii. Public Engagement and Feedback: Insights from public outreach initiatives, feedback from citizens and stakeholders, and summaries of citizen-initiated reviews.
iv. Future Funding Needs: A projected budget for the following fiscal year based on anticipated activities, ensuring Congress has a transparent view of the Committeeâs funding needs and operational goals.
B. Transparency in Reporting: This report shall be made publicly accessible on the Committeeâs website, providing citizens with insight into the Committeeâs performance and financial stewardship. Sensitive information will be redacted as needed to protect personal privacy and secure operational integrity.
C. Congressional Oversight and Review: Congress retains the authority to review the Committeeâs performance annually, making adjustments to funding or operational mandates as necessary to ensure that the Committee remains aligned with the purposes and principles of this Act.
Section 4: Repealing Legislative and Judicial Enactments Permitting State Overreach on the Right to Travel
Purpose and Legislative Authority
This section emphasizes Congressâs role in protecting the constitutional rights of the people by setting boundaries on state authority in areas where state regulations infringe upon fundamental liberties, specifically the right to travel. Congress is not overreaching its delegated powers but is instead acting within its constitutional duty to protect individual rights under the 9th and 10th Amendments, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the guarantee of a republican form of government as set forth in Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.
Preservation of State Rights Under the 10th Amendment
Congress acknowledges that the 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states or the people. However, this Act operates within the limitations of Congressâs delegated powers by addressing issues of national consistency and protection of individual rights, areas where Congressâs authority to act is constitutionally grounded. The right to travel is a fundamental privilege and immunity of citizenship that the states cannot infringe upon by imposing burdensome prerequisites, such as licensing, registration, or mandatory insurance on personal travel.
A. Federal Limitations on State Authority in Accordance with the Privileges and Immunities Clause (Article IV, Section 2)
The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents states from discriminating against citizens of other states in matters fundamental to national unity and individual freedom, including the right to travel freely. This Act enforces that principle by ensuring that states cannot impose undue restrictions or prerequisites on citizensâ ability to travel within or across state lines using privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles. By clarifying that personal travel is a right of citizenship, not subject to state-imposed privileges, Congress protects this core liberty from inconsistent state interference.
B. Recognition of the 9th Amendment and the Reserved Rights of the People
The 9th Amendment affirms that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. The right to personal travel, as a necessary element of individual liberty, is among these retained rights. Congress, therefore, acts here to protect a pre-existing right that the Constitution recognizes but does not explicitly enumerate. The imposition of licensing and other requirements by the states on personal travel directly infringes upon these reserved rights, an infringement that Congress is duty-bound to correct and prevent under this Act.
Repeal of Federal Statutory Provisions Supporting Licensing, Registration, and Mandatory Insurance Requirements
A. Amendment to the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 23 U.S.C. § 402
The Highway Safety Act has been utilized by states as a justification for imposing licensing, registration, and insurance mandates on personal travel, interpreting the Actâs safety provisions as supporting regulatory requirements. This Act amends 23 U.S.C. § 402 to clarify that federal funding under the Highway Safety Act is not intended to support or require state mandates on licensing, registration, or insurance for personal, non-commercial travel. Instead, federal support will be conditional only upon measures that directly promote genuine public safety without impeding constitutionally protected liberties.
B. Repeal of Provisions Misused to Justify Financial Exactions for Personal Vehicle Use
Congress hereby repeals any federal statutory language, within the Highway Safety Act or related provisions, that has been misinterpreted or applied by states to permit tolls, fees, or other financial exactions as prerequisites for personal vehicle use. These measures are clarified to apply strictly to commercial enterprises, where interstate commerce regulation is constitutionally valid, rather than to private citizens exercising the right to personal travel.
Legislative Correction of Judicial Precedents Misinterpreting State Authority Over Personal Travel
A. Limitation on Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610 (1915)
In Hendrick v. Maryland, the Supreme Court upheld Marylandâs authority to impose licensing fees on non-resident drivers, interpreting this regulation as an exercise of the stateâs police power. However, this Act clarifies that Hendrick does not extend to justify the restriction of personal travel rights for residents or non-residents using privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles. Congress declares that the scope of Hendrick is limited to specific, safety-related regulations that are narrow in scope and historically justifiedânot as a blanket authority for states to burden the right to travel.
B. Limitation on Kane v. New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160 (1916)
Similarly, in Kane v. New Jersey, the Court upheld permit requirements for out-of-state vehicles. This Act clarifies that this precedent does not authorize states to condition personal travel upon licensing or permits. Congress asserts that any state regulation requiring permits or fees for non-commercial, personal travel is inconsistent with the constitutional protection of the right to travel and, therefore, preempted by federal law.
Protection of the Right to Travel as a Privilege and Immunity of Citizenship
A. Affirmation of the Right to Travel as a Privilege of National Citizenship
Congress reaffirms that the right to travel freely among the states is a privilege of U.S. citizenship that no state may abridge. By imposing licensing and registration requirements, states convert this inherent right into a regulated privilege, which is incompatible with the constitutional protections established under the Privileges and Immunities Clause and confirmed through historical precedent.
B. Protection Against State Imposition of Preemptive Financial Conditions on Travel
Recognizing that the requirement for licensing, registration, and insurance creates a precondition on the exercise of a constitutional right, this Act prohibits such preconditions for personal, non-commercial travel. Congress mandates that states may not interfere with an individualâs right to travel unless a compelling and historically supported reason, directly related to public safety, can be demonstrated.
Congressional Oversight of Future State Regulations Affecting Travel Rights
A. Provision for Oversight of New State Regulations
This Act provides Congress the authority to review and nullify any future state regulations that infringe upon the right to personal travel by imposing licensing, registration, or insurance requirements. Congress will continually monitor state actions to ensure that all regulations align with the protections established in this Act and do not contravene federal constitutional standards or the principles of a republican government.
B. Role of Federal Preemption in Preserving the Republican Form of Government
By reaffirming Congressâs authority to preempt state laws that infringe upon constitutionally protected rights, this Act reinforces the guarantee of a republican form of government under Article IV, Section 4. In a republic, the government exists to serve the people, with sovereignty residing in the individuals who hold these rights. Therefore, state measures that infringe upon the peopleâs liberties in the exercise of personal travel undermine the republican form of government, necessitating federal intervention to preserve these rights.
Section 4.1: Limitations on State Justifications for Licensing, Registration, and Insurance Requirements
Purpose
This section addresses and refutes the common argument that states must impose licensing, registration, and insurance requirements on privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles to cover road maintenance costs, asserting that such measures conflict with constitutional protections of the right to travel. This section underscores the necessity for state-imposed travel regulations to align with historical precedent, the principle of least restrictive means, and constitutional limitations on state authority under a republican form of government.
Rejection of Licensing and Registration as a Condition for Exercising Fundamental Rights:
Licensing, registration, and compulsory insurance requirements imposed on private, non-commercial vehicles effectively convert a fundamental rightâthe right to travelâinto a conditional privilege. In a republican form of government, rooted in individual sovereignty, these regulatory requirements lack historical precedent. Nowhere in early American legal history is there evidence that citizensâ freedom of movement was subject to such financial and bureaucratic conditions. As the Supreme Court emphasized in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), regulatory measures impacting fundamental rights must have a clear basis in historical tradition and meet a stringent standard of narrow tailoring. This Act, therefore, prohibits states from requiring licensing, registration, or insurance as preconditions for the use of personal vehicles for non-commercial travel.
Affirming the 10th Amendmentâs Limited Scope on State Authority
While the 10th Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, this does not grant states unlimited authority to regulate in ways that infringe upon federally protected rights. The 10th Amendmentâs deference to state powers is inherently limited by the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the 9th Amendment, and the protections of the 14th Amendment, which collectively ensure that states do not infringe on fundamental liberties such as the right to travel. As the right to travel is federally protected, states cannot invoke the 10th Amendment as justification for regulatory schemes that effectively tax or restrict this right. This Act clarifies that Congressâs intervention is not an overreach but a necessary check on state power to uphold the Constitutionâs uniform protection of individual liberties.
Preservation of Equal Access Under a Republican Form of Government
Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government, which, as articulated in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793), affirms the people as the ultimate sovereigns. A republican government is structured to serve all citizens equally, not to create financial or regulatory barriers that hinder equal access to public resources. Public roads, as assets held in public trust, must remain accessible to all citizens, free from financial prerequisites that disproportionately affect those unable to meet them. Licensing and registration requirements undermine the principles of a republic by creating a two-tiered system where only those who can afford the financial and bureaucratic burdens are afforded unrestricted access to public roadways.
Emphasis on Congressional Authority to Protect Rights and Federal Oversight of State Power
Congress has a constitutionally mandated role in protecting individual rights and ensuring that states do not enact laws that compromise fundamental liberties. The Privileges and Immunities Clause, alongside the 14th Amendment, empowers Congress to address and prevent state actions that unjustly restrict the right to travel. This Act serves as a reassertion of Congressâs role in establishing a consistent national standard for individual freedoms, preempting arbitrary or excessive regulations imposed by states under the guise of police powers. Congress is not infringing upon state autonomy but is instead enforcing constitutional limits on state power to safeguard individual liberties in a consistent manner across all states.
Requirement for Historical Precedent, Narrow Tailoring, and Least Restrictive Means in Infrastructure Funding
States may argue that vehicle-related fees are necessary to fund road infrastructure; however, this Act mandates that any financial exactions impacting the right to travel must be the least restrictive means available and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest, in alignment with the Bruen decision. States must explore and implement alternatives that do not impinge upon this fundamental right, such as general appropriations from the state budget, special infrastructure bonds, or the allocation of state sales tax revenue. This funding should not target travelers alone, as doing so improperly burdens individuals exercising a constitutional right. The Act prohibits any such selective taxation that undermines the republican principle of equal access.
Fiduciary Standards and Transparent Use of Funds
To address concerns about funding road maintenance, this Act mandates that all funds collected through permissible charges on personal vehicles be subject to strict fiduciary standards. These funds must be allocated exclusively to the construction, maintenance, and safety of public roadways, aligning with what a reasonable person would consider necessary and appropriate for these specific purposes. States are barred from redirecting vehicle-related revenue to unrelated programs or general state revenue accounts, ensuring that any financial imposition on personal travel is transparently reported and used solely for its intended purpose.
Explicit Rejection of Licensing, Registration, and Insurance as the âOnlyâ Funding Mechanisms
This Act refutes the argument that licensing, registration, and insurance are the only practical means of funding public roadways. A variety of alternative funding mechanisms exist that can fulfill infrastructure needs without infringing on the right to travel. Congress, through this Act, requires that states demonstrate a good-faith effort to use equitable, historically consistent, and minimally restrictive funding sources. By doing so, Congress reinforces that roads as public assets must remain accessible to all citizens without imposing conditions that turn a right into a privilege.
Section 4.2: Safeguarding and Ensuring Effective Allocation of Road Maintenance Funds
Purpose
This section addresses the responsible allocation and usage of road maintenance funds by states, requiring transparency, accountability, and consistent dedication of resources to public roadways. This Act prohibits the misuse or underutilization of funds collected from vehicle-related fees, licensing, registration, and taxes, mandating that these funds serve their intended purpose in maintaining and improving road infrastructure, without forcing citizens into alternative transportation choices through budget manipulation.
Prohibition on the Diversion and Underutilization of Road Maintenance Funds
States are constitutionally obligated to uphold the public trust associated with road infrastructure by dedicating revenue collected from vehicle-related fees to the construction, maintenance, repair, and necessary expansion of roadways. Recognizing issues, as observed in states like California, where substantial funds are collected but underutilized or diverted, this Act explicitly prohibits any misuse of these funds. Vehicle-related revenue must be exclusively allocated to public road infrastructure to ensure citizens who pay these fees directly benefit from safe and well-maintained roads.
Minimum Allocation Requirement for Road Infrastructure Expenditures
To ensure states meet their obligation to maintain public roadways, this Act mandates that states allocate a minimum of 65% of all vehicle-related revenue toward road infrastructure, including construction, maintenance, safety, and necessary upgrades. This baseline safeguards against fund diversion and reinforces the public trust that vehicle-related funds serve road users.
A. Independent Audit Clause: should a state assert that its roads have reached an exceptionally high standard, thereby justifying less than the mandated 65% expenditure, the following process shall govern the consideration of an independent audit request:
i. Submission of Audit Request:
The state must submit a formal request for an independent audit through its chief executive officer, typically the Attorney General or designated equivalent. This request must include supporting evidence demonstrating that at least 80% of the stateâs roads exceed the national average in infrastructure quality and that maintaining the 65% allocation is no longer necessary.
a. Governor as Primary Petitioner Process: The Governor of the state submits the petition, supported by documentation from the stateâs Department of Transportation or relevant infrastructure agency, which certifies the stateâs claim about road conditions.
Rationale: As the chief executive officer of the state, the Governor holds ultimate authority over budgetary matters and infrastructure priorities, making them a suitable choice for overseeing this request.
b. Department of Transportation (DOT) Submission with Governorâs Endorsement Process: The state Department of Transportation (or equivalent agency) prepares the petition, providing all necessary data and evidence regarding road quality. The Governor reviews and endorses this submission to confirm executive support.
Rationale: This option enables subject-matter experts within the stateâs DOT to compile and certify data, ensuring technical accuracy and relevance. The Governorâs endorsement adds a layer of accountability, reinforcing that the request is supported by the executive branch.
c. Bipartisan Legislative Approval and Submission Process: The state legislature passes a resolution authorizing the petition for an audit. Upon approval, the legislature submits the petition jointly with either the Governorâs or the Speaker of the Houseâs endorsement, depending on state preferences.
Rationale: Involving the legislature adds democratic legitimacy and helps ensure that the decision to request an audit is supported across party lines, reducing potential partisan influence over the audit process.
d. Attorney General or State Auditor as a Certifying Authority Process: The Attorney General or an independently elected State Auditor reviews and certifies the petition prepared by the Department of Transportation or another designated agency. This individual certifies that the request meets evidentiary standards before submission to the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee.
Rationale: In states where the Attorney General or State Auditor holds responsibility for accountability in financial and operational matters, this option adds a layer of independent oversight to verify the legitimacy of the request.
e. Independent Commission on Transportation Infrastructure Process: For states with independent commissions overseeing transportation or infrastructure, the commission could draft and submit the petition, pending approval from the Governor or legislature.
Rationale: This option is ideal for states with nonpartisan or bipartisan transportation commissions tasked with objectively overseeing road quality and infrastructure spending, making the petition process impartial and data-driven.
B. Committee Review and Vote Requirement:
Upon receipt of the stateâs request, the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee shall review the supporting documentation and evaluate the merit of the audit request. A vote shall be conducted within the Committee, requiring a supermajority of two-thirds (2/3) approval to authorize the audit. If the Committee fails to secure a two-thirds vote in favor, the request for audit is denied, and the state must continue adhering to the 65% expenditure requirement.
C. Independent Audit Process:
If the Committee approves the audit request, it will appoint an external, licensed auditor, serving as a neutral third party, to assess the condition of the stateâs roads. The auditor must evaluate infrastructure quality against established national benchmarks and standards, verifying whether at least 80% of the stateâs roadways meet or exceed the national average.
D. Audit Findings and Budget Adjustment:
Should the auditorâs findings confirm that 80% or more of the stateâs roadways surpass the national infrastructure standard, the state may reduce its allocation to a minimum of 20% of the vehicle-related budget for the following five years. This reduction is contingent upon a demonstrated maintenance of high infrastructure quality, with the state retaining responsibility for addressing any emergent issues during this period.
E. Re-Evaluation Every Five Years:
At the end of the five-year period, the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee shall conduct a re-evaluation, initiating another independent audit to determine if conditions have changed. Should the audit reveal a decline in road quality below the 80% threshold, the state will be directed to resume the 65% expenditure level until further eligibility for reduced spending is re-established.
F. Fair Market Value Requirement for Expenditures:
Regardless of the audit outcome, all vehicle-related revenue allocated to road infrastructure must be expended at fair market value. States are prohibited from inflating contract costs or granting excessively high compensation for contracted work compared to prevailing private sector rates. This measure ensures that funds are used responsibly, with expenditures reflecting the actual cost of work in a competitive market, thereby preventing budget manipulation or misallocation.
Prohibition on Using Road Infrastructure Funds to Discourage Personal Vehicle Use
This Act prevents states from utilizing road infrastructure funds in a manner that discourages personal vehicle use. Recognizing the right of individuals to select their mode of transportation, the Act prohibits actions such as deprioritizing road maintenance or reducing road capacity to coerce reliance on public transit. Such actions infringe upon individualsâ freedom to choose their transportation method and contradict the principles of a republican form of government. States are obligated to maintain accessible, well-maintained roadways without financially penalizing citizens for choosing privately-owned vehicles.
Transparency and Accountability in State Transportation Budgeting
To reinforce public trust and ensure proper fund usage, each state must publish an annual, itemized breakdown of how vehicle-related revenue is allocated. This report must detail expenditures dedicated to road maintenance, safety, construction, and improvements, specifically benefiting non-commercial, privately-owned vehicles. Any deviation from this allocation, such as funding unrelated projects or public transit initiatives, will result in federal corrective actions to restore proper fund usage. The Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee is empowered to review these reports and ensure adherence to the Actâs standards.
Prevention of Economic Coercion in Transportation Choices
This Act reaffirms that citizens have the right to choose their mode of travel without economic coercion. States shall not indirectly force citizens toward public transit by neglecting road infrastructure or imposing excessive financial burdens on private vehicle users. Any such practices undermine the fundamental right to free travel by personal conveyance and violate the republican principle of individual autonomy.
Encouragement of Balanced Transportation Funding
While the Act prioritizes road infrastructure, it acknowledges the value of public transit. States are encouraged to fund public transit initiatives independently, without re-allocating vehicle-related funds intended for road maintenance. This balanced approach respects the purpose of road maintenance funds and ensures that both road infrastructure and public transit can be robustly supported without infringing upon citizensâ right to freely choose their mode of travel.
Federal Oversight and Corrective Measures for Non-Compliance
In cases of non-compliance, where states fail to meet the 65% minimum expenditure requirement or improperly allocate funds, the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee will issue a notice of non-compliance and require corrective action. Persistent non-compliance may lead to federal funding penalties, withholding of highway grants, or other federal corrective measures. If a state disputes the necessity of the 65% allocation, an independent audit will be conducted to assess compliance with the Actâs standards and ensure accountability in fund usage.
Section 5: Federal Preemption and Enforcement Mechanisms
Purpose:
To uphold the principles of a republican form of government and safeguard the constitutional right to travel, this section provides for the preemption of conflicting state laws, defines enforcement mechanisms, and details corrective actions to ensure compliance. Under this section, Congress exercises its authority under the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8) and the Guarantee Clause (Article IV, Section 4) to maintain uniformity in protecting the right to travel across state lines and prevent excessive state encroachment on this fundamental liberty.
Federal Preemption over Conflicting State Legislation
To ensure consistency with federal standards established in this Act, any state law, regulation, or administrative practice that conflicts with the provisions herein is hereby preempted. This preemption includes, but is not limited to, state-imposed licensing, registration requirements, mandatory insurance mandates, excessive fees, and other financial or administrative burdens that inhibit the fundamental right to travel by privately-owned, non-commercial vehicle. Such preemption is essential to uphold the principle of a republican form of government, ensuring that states do not interfere with or diminish individual liberties guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
A. Preemption Clause: Any state law or regulation that imposes conditions on the use of privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles for personal travel, in ways that conflict with the protections in this Act, shall be rendered invalid and unenforceable.
B. The Commerce Clause: This clause grants Congress the power to regulate activities that impact interstate commerce, and travel between states is a core component of such commerce. This Act reinforces Congressâs duty to âpreserve the integrity of interstate commerce by ensuring individuals can freely travel among the states without undue regulatory burdens.â Furthermore, the Guarantee Clause obliges Congress to secure a republican form of government, which demands that state regulations respect individual rights, including the right to unimpeded travel. As citizens are the sovereigns within a republic, any action by a state that unduly restricts personal travel undermines this republican structure, warranting federal intervention.
C. Consistency Requirement: States must ensure that all transportation-related policies align with this Actâs standards to prevent unjustified or excessive restrictions on travel. Any state regulation deemed inconsistent with these standards shall be subject to corrective measures outlined in this section.
D. Historical Precedent for Federal Oversight: This Act also draws upon historical instances where federal oversight was necessary to protect individual liberties against state overreach, particularly in areas impacting fundamental rights. Notably, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent federal actions during the Civil Rights Movement exemplify the federal governmentâs role in intervening when states enacted or enforced laws that abridged personal liberties. Just as federal authority was required to ensure that states did not infringe upon the rights of individuals through segregation and discriminatory practices, similar oversight is justified here to protect the inherent right to travel. The precedent of federal intervention to safeguard civil rights establishes a strong legal basis for ensuring that states do not impose undue restrictions on personal travel, as these too constitute an infringement upon fundamental liberties under the Constitution.
Enforcement Actions by the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee
The Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee (hereafter referred to as âthe Committeeâ) is empowered to ensure adherence to the Actâs requirements, monitoring state compliance and implementing corrective measures when necessary.
A. Compliance Audits: The Committee shall conduct regular and periodic audits to verify that states comply with this Actâs provisions. These audits will review state vehicle-related fees, revenue allocation practices, and any regulatory measures impacting personal travel.
B. Corrective Action Recommendations: In cases where a state is found to be non-compliant, the Committee shall issue formal recommendations for corrective action. States must implement these recommendations within a designated period to remedy any violations. Failure to comply with these recommendations will trigger further enforcement actions.
C. Mandatory Compliance Reporting: States are required to submit detailed reports on the allocation and utilization of vehicle-related revenues and any regulations affecting personal travel. Reports shall be reviewed annually to ensure transparency and adherence to the Actâs standards.
Referral to the U.S. Attorney General for Legal Action
In cases of persistent or flagrant non-compliance, the Committee shall refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney General, who is authorized to take legal action against the state in federal court. This action may include seeking injunctive relief, financial penalties, or other judicial remedies to enforce compliance with the Act.
A. Legal Authority: The Attorney General shall have standing to initiate legal proceedings to enjoin state actions that violate the federal protections established by this Act. This legal authority reinforces the federal governmentâs commitment to protecting individualsâ right to travel and curtailing unconstitutional state interference.
B. Scope of Remedies: The Attorney General may pursue a range of remedies, including but not limited to, court-ordered compliance, reimbursement for funds improperly diverted, and penalties for continued violations.
Establishment of Federal Penalties for Non-Compliance
To deter states from enacting or enforcing measures that violate this Act, federal penalties shall be imposed on states found in non-compliance after receiving corrective recommendations.
A. Financial Sanctions: States that fail to correct non-compliant practices shall face financial penalties, including reductions in federal highway or infrastructure grants. Penalties shall be proportionate to the degree of non-compliance, with escalating sanctions for repeated violations.
B. Mandatory Compliance Programs: In cases of prolonged non-compliance, the Committee may require states to enter mandatory compliance programs designed to realign their transportation policies with federal standards. These programs may include federal oversight of state budgetary allocations for road maintenance and vehicle-related expenditures.
Protection Against Retaliation for Individuals Exercising the Right to Travel
This Act prohibits states from retaliating against individuals who assert their right to travel freely in privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles. Any individual who experiences punitive actions by state authorities in relation to their rights under this Act may seek federal redress.
A. Right to Federal Remedy: Individuals subject to retaliatory state actions may file complaints with the Committee, which shall investigate and, if warranted, take action to protect the individualâs rights under this Act.
B. Civil Remedy: The Committee may assist affected individuals in seeking civil remedies, including damages, for any financial or legal penalties unjustly imposed as a consequence of asserting their protected right to travel.
Procedure for State Petitions for Reconsideration
States may petition the Committee for reconsideration or clarification regarding specific provisions of this Act or compliance requirements. This petition process allows states to request guidance or propose adjustments where unique circumstances warrant alternative compliance strategies, provided these do not undermine the Actâs core protections.
A. Submission of Petitions: State petitions must be submitted by the stateâs chief executive officer or equivalent authority, along with a clear rationale for the request. Petitions will be reviewed by the Committee, which may grant or deny the request based on its alignment with the Actâs purpose.
B. Public Notice of Petition Outcomes: Any decisions regarding state petitions will be publicly documented and accessible through the Committeeâs digital transparency platform, ensuring transparency and public awareness of compliance standards.
Judicial Review as a Constitutional Safeguard, Not a Mechanism for Judicial Overreach
This Act is rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers, which mandates that each branch of government operates within its respective constitutional domain. Judicial review under this Act is narrowly confined to assessing the constitutionality of federal and state actions in enforcing the right to travel. It does not confer upon the judiciary the power to reinterpret or expand upon the Actâs provisions beyond the legislative intent expressed herein.
A. Affirmation of Judicial Review under Article III as a Limited, Interpretative Function
In crafting this provision, Congress reaffirms that the judicial power vested in Article III is confined to matters of interpretation and application, not expansion or modification. Judicial review under this Act is limited to the question of constitutional compliance: specifically, whether enforcement actions adhere to the foundational principles set forth in the Constitution. The judiciaryâs role is therefore one of restraint, guided by the original meaning of the Constitution as understood by the Founders, rather than an opportunity for the courts to alter legislative objectives.
B. Legislative Intent as the Paramount Guide for Judicial Interpretation
This Act enshrines the right to travel as an essential component of republican liberty. In recognition of this foundational right, the judiciaryâs review is intended solely as a protective measure to prevent any state or federal enforcement that may undermine this liberty. Judicial review is not a grant of authority to amend, revise, or expand upon the right to travel beyond the parameters established by Congress. Legislative intent, informed by historical understanding and the original context of the right to travel, is to be the primary guide for any judicial interpretation under this Act.
C. Historical Precedent and the Judiciaryâs Interpretative Restraint
Informed by early judicial writings, such as those of Chief Justice John Jay, which caution against judicial encroachment upon legislative prerogatives, this Act underscores the judiciaryâs role as one of interpretative restraint. Judicial review here is intended to function within a framework of deference to Congressâs constitutional powers, ensuring that the judiciary does not assume a legislative function by altering the Actâs scope or intent. This approach preserves the integrity of the judiciary while respecting the Constitutionâs original structure of powers.
D. Prohibition on Judicial Augmentation of Substantive Rights
This Act explicitly prohibits any expansion of substantive rights through judicial interpretation. Judicial review is limited to confirming that enforcement mechanisms, as exercised by federal and state authorities, remain within constitutional bounds. The judiciaryâs role does not include revising the Actâs definitions, expanding the scope of the right to travel, or inserting additional requirements not present in the legislative text. This prohibition aligns with the principle of judicial restraint and respects the balance of powers established by the Constitution.
E. Publicly Transparent and Constitutionally Bound Review
To reinforce public trust in the judiciaryâs limited role, any decision rendered under judicial review must be accompanied by a written opinion expressly confirming that the courtâs analysis was confined to questions of constitutional compliance. The judiciary is required to explicitly state that its decision does not modify or expand the Act but merely ensures that its enforcement aligns with constitutional principles. This transparency serves as a check against judicial overreach and affirms the judiciaryâs commitment to uphold, rather than reinterpret, legislative intent.
F. Original Jurisdiction in Matters of Constitutional Disputes
In instances where judicial review is necessary, this Act encourages the use of the Supreme Courtâs original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, as the appropriate forum for constitutional disputes that arise under this Act. This reliance on original jurisdiction reinforces the judiciaryâs role as an interpreter of the Constitution rather than a reviser of legislative frameworks, thereby maintaining the separation of powers and minimizing potential conflicts between federal and state governments over the Actâs enforcement.
Section 5.1: Federal Limitations on State-Imposed Licensing and Financial Exactions
Purpose:
To ensure that the use of public roadways remains a right rather than a conditional privilege and to restrict states from imposing excessive or duplicative financial exactions on the free exercise of this right. This section prohibits states from imposing additional licensing fees, taxes, or mandatory registrations on privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles in ways that compromise the right to travel or constitute unequal, unjust taxation, as highlighted in Chicago v. Collins, 175 Ill. 445, 51 N.E. 907, 909, 49 L.R.A. 408, 67 Am. St. Rep. 224,.
Affirmation of Public Roadways as a Right, Not a Privilege
Following the rationale in Chicago v. Collins, public roads are held in trust by the state for the benefit of the general public, and the right to travel along these roads is a fundamental right. States, as trustees of public roadways, must not impose arbitrary financial burdens on individuals merely exercising their right to travel. This Act explicitly recognizes the publicâs right to use roadways without the requirement of excessive licenses, registrations, or fees that transform this right into a state-controlled privilege.
Trust Doctrine and Public Roads:
States hold public roads in trust for the citizens, signifying that these roads are commonwealth assetsâinherently accessible to all members of the public for lawful, private use. As trustees of these public assets, states may not impose arbitrary financial burdens or restrictions that transform this right into a privilege controlled by the state. The right to travel on public roads includes all individuals using ordinary modes of locomotion and is safeguarded under the trust doctrine, which demands that any interference must be narrowly tailored, minimally restrictive, and firmly rooted in historical precedent. Just as public navigable waters are traditionally held in trust for unrestricted public use, public roadways similarly demand open and equal access, free from undue financial or bureaucratic impositions.
Prohibition on Double Taxation and Arbitrary Financial Burdens
States are prohibited from imposing a âdouble taxâ on vehicles through the imposition of specific license fees, road use fees, or similar financial exactions that duplicate general property taxes already levied on vehicle ownership. Drawing from the principles in Chicago v. Collins, such practices constitute an unconstitutional imposition that disproportionately impacts one class of citizensâthose exercising their right to travel in privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles.
A. No Double Taxation Clause: States shall not impose vehicle-specific fees or taxes that effectively double tax private vehicle owners, especially if they have already contributed to road funding through other taxes. All fees imposed must be justifiable as directly linked to the use, safety, and maintenance of road infrastructure, rather than as revenue-raising mechanisms.
B. Uniformity in Taxation: Any charges applied must be consistent with principles of equality and uniformity, avoiding disparate impacts on private vehicle owners and ensuring fair distribution of financial responsibilities.
Requirement for Transparent, Road-Specific Revenue Allocation
Any revenue collected from vehicle-related fees must be exclusively directed toward road maintenance and infrastructure projects directly benefiting the public roadways. States are prohibited from using these funds for unrelated purposes or transferring them to general revenue, consistent with the Collins decisionâs emphasis on the purpose and fair distribution of collected funds.
A. Road Maintenance Fund Protection: This Act mandates that states establish a âRoad Maintenance Fundâ to which all vehicle-related fees are directed. This fund shall be dedicated solely to the construction, maintenance, repair, and necessary expansion of public roads, and its use for other projects is explicitly prohibited.
B. Transparent Reporting Requirements: States must publicly disclose detailed, itemized accounts of how these funds are allocated. Any deviation from road-specific expenditure will be subject to federal review and, where necessary, corrective measures.
Federal Oversight and Enforcement of Compliance
The Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee shall monitor state adherence to these limitations and ensure that vehicle-related revenue is neither excessive nor misapplied. The Committee will have the authority to investigate complaints, conduct audits, and require states to amend any practices that violate the principles established by this Act and the Collins case.
A. Compliance Audits and Corrective Measures: The Committee will periodically audit state practices to ensure compliance. If a state is found to be imposing unjustifiable financial burdens on private vehicle use, the Committee may recommend corrective action, including the potential withholding of federal highway funds.
B. Judicial Enforcement and Legal Recourse: The U.S. Attorney General is authorized to seek injunctive relief and other judicial remedies if states fail to comply. This may include requiring states to reimburse vehicle owners for improperly imposed fees or mandating alignment with federal standards as articulated in this Act.
Section 5.2: Prohibition on Double Taxation and Arbitrary Financial Burdens on Personal Travel
The principle of equal protection under the law prohibits states from imposing arbitrary or excessive financial burdens on citizens exercising their right to travel by personal, non-commercial vehicle. This Act explicitly bars any form of âdouble taxationâ on private vehicle owners, whereby individuals are required to pay redundant fees, tolls, or taxes in addition to general vehicle-related property taxes, solely to use public roads. Such impositions transform a fundamental right into a privilege, disproportionately burdening one class of citizens without justification.
* **Double Taxation as a Violation of Equal Protection:**
As illustrated in Chicago v. Collins, 175 Ill. 445, 51 N.E. 907 (1898), financial burdens placed on vehicle use must be necessary and proportionate, aimed solely at covering the direct costs associated with road maintenance and safety. When states impose duplicative charges without adequate justification, this practice infringes upon equal protection principles by imposing undue financial burdens on certain individuals based on their choice to exercise the right to travel. This Act mandates that states ensure all vehicle-related fees are transparently linked to actual, reasonable expenses and not exploited as general revenue measures.
* Comparison with Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence on Excessive Fines:
This Act further contends that excessive or punitive fees and financial impositions on the right to travel violate the spirit of the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits excessive fines and punishments. In cases such as Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019), the Supreme Court underscored that financial penalties must be proportionate to the offense or regulatory purpose they seek to address. Applying this principle to personal travel, it is constitutionally impermissible for states to levy arbitrary or punitive charges against individuals merely exercising their right to use personal vehicles for non-commercial travel. By enacting this provision, Congress seeks to prevent the imposition of excessive, unjustified financial barriers to travel, reinforcing that vehicle-related fees must serve a legitimate, narrowly tailored public purpose rather than function as revenue-generating mechanisms.
* Requirement for Justification of Financial Burdens as Necessary Public Expenses:
All fees, tolls, or charges imposed on private vehicle owners must meet the standard of being reasonable and necessary public expenses, directly contributing to road maintenance, safety, or infrastructure improvements. Any financial imposition that exceeds these justifications is deemed excessive and arbitrary, infringing on the constitutional right to travel. States are required to establish a transparent, itemized accounting of how vehicle-related revenue is allocated, ensuring that funds are exclusively dedicated to the maintenance and improvement of public roadways and not diverted to unrelated expenses or general state funds.
Section 5.3: Rebuttal of Justifications for State-Imposed Registration and Licensing Requirements
Shifting the Burden of Proof to the State
In line with the rationale established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the burden of proof does not rest on the individual or on Congress to demonstrate why private, non-commercial modes of conveyance should be exempt from fees or restrictions. Instead, it is incumbent upon the states to demonstrate, through historical evidence, that restrictions on private modes of conveyance, such as licensure, registration, or taxation for non-commercial vehicles, were practiced or accepted at the time of the Constitutionâs adoption. Unless the state can produce clear historical evidence showing that private conveyances were subject to licensure or registration as a prerequisite to travel in the 18th century, any such regulation imposed today is constitutionally suspect.
Historical Absence of Travel Restrictions on Private Conveyances
The Act affirms that there is no historical precedent from the Founding Era to support state-imposed restrictions or fees on the personal, non-commercial use of privately-owned conveyances. Public records from that period reveal a strong tradition of free movement across roads and paths, especially for non-commercial purposes. This tradition underscores the original understanding of unimpeded travel rights, suggesting that modern registration and licensing requirements lack a constitutional foundation if they cannot demonstrate a clear historical analog.
Inapplicability of âNarrow Tailoringâ or âLeast Restrictive Meansâ Tests
Modern judicial standards like ânarrow tailoringâ or âleast restrictive meansâ do not apply here, as they are constructs of contemporary jurisprudence without a basis in the Founding Eraâs approach to rights. The Framers recognized rights as natural and inherent, only subject to limitations through established legal traditions of that time. Thus, unless a historical precedent exists for specific restrictions on personal travel, such impositions are constitutionally dubious.
Specific Rebuttals to Safety and Revenue Arguments
Safety Justifications : While states may argue that registration or licensing enhances road safety, this argument fails under constitutional scrutiny unless supported by analogous historical practice. During the Founding Era, safety concerns led to regulation of specific dangerous conduct but did not extend to travel restrictions on the mode of conveyance itself.
Revenue Generation : Attempts to justify fees as necessary for road maintenance or infrastructure funding are likewise insufficient without historical support. Historically, road maintenance was often managed by local or community efforts, and the concept of taxing individuals for the right to travel privately would have been viewed as an affront to individual liberties. Without evidence that such financial burdens were customary at the Founding, these arguments lack constitutional standing.
Affirming the Right to Travel as a Core Liberty Beyond Modern Regulatory Frameworks
This Act reinforces that the right to travel is an enduring, fundamental liberty, predating the Constitution, that should not be subordinated to modern regulatory frameworks without a concrete historical basis. Just as Bruen reinforced the right to bear arms by restricting modern regulatory overreach without historical precedent, so too does this Act seek to safeguard the right to travel from unfounded restrictions on personal, non-commercial travel.
Judicial Adjudication Limited to Historical Verification
To prevent judicial overreach, this Act confines judicial review of state-imposed restrictions to verifying the existence of historical precedent. Courts reviewing challenges to this Act are directed to limit their analysis to whether the state has substantiated its regulatory actions with clear historical evidence, avoiding the use of balancing tests or policy-based reasoning.
Section 6: Specific Procedural Safeguards and Citizen Protections
Purpose: This section establishes essential procedural safeguards and citizen protections to ensure that any state actions impacting the right to travel adhere strictly to constitutional principles of due process, fairness, and transparency. It reinforces that any enforcement action must respect individualsâ fundamental liberties and prohibits retaliatory or punitive measures against citizens asserting their protected right to travel.
6.1: Procedural Safeguards for Enforcement Actions Against Travelers
Due Process Protocols for Enforcement Actions
Any state enforcement action relating to personal travelâsuch as traffic stops, citations for alleged violations of licensing or registration requirements, or similar administrative actionsâmust strictly adhere to established due process principles. States are mandated to ensure that individuals are afforded the following protections:
Notification of Rights: During any encounter involving personal travel, state or local law enforcement must inform individuals of their rights under this Act, including their right to travel freely without undue restrictions on privately-owned, non-commercial vehicles used for personal purposes.
Requirement for Common Law Due Process Standards: Enforcement actions must meet the foundational requirements of due process under common law, including the presumption of innocence, applicability of mens rea (guilty mind), actus reus (guilty action), and corpus delicti (proof of a specific harm or crime). Actions taken in absence of these standards, especially those based solely on administrative statutes without a clear victim or demonstrable harm, are prohibited under this Act as unconstitutional.
Prohibition on Arbitrary or Summary Penalties
Administrative or judicial penalties that lack full due process protectionsâsuch as fines, forfeitures, or other punitive measuresâare prohibited. This prohibition includes but is not limited to:
Summary Suspensions and Fines imposed without an opportunity for the individual to defend themselves in a formal hearing before a jury of their peers, ensuring that common law principles are respected.
Seizure of Property Without Due Process: Any seizure of personal vehicles or other property related to enforcement actions must be accompanied by full procedural protections, including the right to contest the seizure before an impartial tribunal. Seizures that occur without just compensation or due process, including notice and a hearing, shall be deemed unconstitutional takings in violation of this Act and the Fifth Amendment.
Requirement for Judicial Oversight in Enforcement Actions
No administrative body or agency may exercise enforcement authority over an individualâs right to travel without judicial oversight. Any action that imposes a penalty or restriction on personal travel must be reviewed by an independent judiciary, ensuring adherence to the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial and due process protections.
6.2: Citizen Protections Against Retaliation for Asserting the Right to Travel
Anti-Retaliation Protections
Individuals who invoke or assert their right to travel under this Act are safeguarded from retaliatory actions by state actors, law enforcement, or any other governmental bodies. Retaliatory measuresâsuch as increased surveillance, targeted traffic stops, unjustified citations, or excessive finesâare expressly prohibited.
Mechanism for Reporting Retaliatory Actions
To enforce these protections, this Act establishes a mechanism for individuals to report suspected retaliatory actions directly to the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee. The Committee shall investigate credible reports of retaliation, taking corrective action and recommending sanctions against any state agency or official found in violation of anti-retaliation provisions.
Legal Recourse for Retaliation Victims
Any individual who experiences retaliation after asserting their right to travel shall have the right to pursue legal action against the offending state actors or agencies. Remedies include compensatory damages, injunctive relief to prevent further retaliation, and punitive damages as appropriate under federal law.
6.3: Legal Recourse and Civil Remedies
Right to Seek Civil Remedies
Individuals who suffer unlawful penalties, property seizures, or restrictions due to state-imposed requirements in violation of this Act shall be entitled to seek civil remedies. This includes the right to file lawsuits for monetary damages, injunctive relief, and any other remedies necessary to redress unlawful actions taken by state authorities.
Prohibition on Takings Without Just Compensation and Due Process
Consistent with the Fifth Amendment, this Act reaffirms that no state may seize propertyâwhether vehicles, personal effects, or other assetsâwithout providing just compensation and adhering to full due process protections. Specifically:
Compensation Requirement: Any seizure of property must include just compensation as determined by fair market value, ensuring individuals are not deprived of their property without recourse.
Due Process in Forfeiture Actions: All forfeiture actions must meet stringent procedural safeguards, including the right to contest the forfeiture in a court of law, with the burden of proof resting on the state to establish the necessity and legality of the forfeiture. Forfeiture is only permissible upon a lawful conviction where clear harm has been demonstrated, aligning with the constitutional protections of common law.
Right to Jury Trial Under Common Law Standards
Any individual facing enforcement actions that may lead to fines, forfeitures, or restrictions on travel rights has the right to a trial by jury. Common law standardsâincluding mens rea, actus reus, and corpus delictiâapply to ensure that enforcement actions are based on demonstrable harm or criminal conduct rather than administrative infractions. The juryâs role is crucial in preserving the rights of the individual and protecting against arbitrary state power.
Federal Support for Legal Claims
The Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee shall provide resources to assist individuals seeking justice under this Act. This includes:
Legal Assistance: The Committee may refer individuals to qualified legal counsel and provide guidance on filing complaints against states or state actors who infringe upon the right to travel.
Oversight and Advocacy: In cases where patterns of abuse are detected, the Committee shall have the authority to initiate investigations and recommend corrective measures at the federal level, ensuring accountability for violations of this Act.
6.4: Constitutional Foundation and Citizen Empowerment
Empowerment Through Knowledge of Rights
This Act mandates that states educate the public on their right to travel as protected under federal law. Public awareness campaigns shall be established to inform citizens of their constitutional rights, particularly the right to travel without arbitrary or punitive state interference.
Right to Challenge State Actions as Unconstitutional
Citizens shall retain the right to challenge state regulations and enforcement actions that violate this Act in federal court. Courts are tasked with strictly applying the Actâs provisions, particularly the principles established by common law, to ensure that any state-imposed restrictions meet the highest constitutional standards of justification and necessity.
Mandate for Regular Review
A mandatory biennial review shall be conducted by the Federal Right to Travel Compliance and Oversight Committee (FRTCOC) to evaluate the effectiveness, relevance, and constitutionality of the Actâs compliance standards. This review process will involve a comprehensive analysis of:
Evolving Constitutional Interpretations: Ensuring that the Actâs standards align with the latest judicial interpretations of constitutional rights, especially as they pertain to personal liberty, due process, and the right to travel.
Public Safety and Technological Advancements: Assessing how new technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, data-driven traffic management systems, or digital identification mechanisms, impact the enforcement and protection of the right to travel. Adjustments to the Actâs standards may be proposed to address any identified risks or benefits associated with these technologies.
Public Needs and Feedback: Reviewing the practical experiences of citizens and law enforcement officers to ensure that the Act meets the needs of those it is designed to protect and serve. The biennial review will focus on identifying and rectifying any undue burdens imposed on individuals or systemic issues that undermine the right to travel.The results of each biennial review, including recommended changes or amendments, will be documented in a report submitted to Congress and made publicly available.
Independent Expert Input
During each biennial review, the FRTCOC will consult with a panel of independent experts in constitutional law, civil liberties, public policy, and road safety. This panel will provide insights and recommendations on any necessary adjustments to the Actâs standards to ensure the right to travel remains protected in accordance with constitutional principles and practical considerations.
7.2: Public Consultation in Review Process
Public Comment Period and Hearings
To ensure that the Actâs review process is transparent and inclusive, the FRTCOC will open a formal public comment period during each biennial review. This period will allow:
Citizens, Advocacy Groups, and Stakeholders to submit comments, suggestions, and feedback regarding their experiences with the Act and its enforcement.
Public Hearings to be held in accessible locations or virtually, facilitating open dialogue between citizens, experts, advocacy groups, and government officials. These hearings will provide a forum for affected parties to voice concerns, suggest improvements, and contribute to a more effective and fair application of the Act.
Regular Surveys and Feedback Mechanisms
Beyond the biennial review process, the FRTCOC will establish ongoing feedback mechanisms, such as surveys, questionnaires, and online forums, where citizens can continuously share their experiences with the Act. Feedback collected throughout the year will be taken into account during the biennial review, ensuring that the Act remains attentive to public sentiment and experiences.
Transparent Reporting
Summaries of public comments, hearing testimonies, and survey data will be published to maintain transparency. This documentation will help inform future amendments to the Act and ensure that the process remains open to public scrutiny and democratic accountability.
7.3: Adaptive Amendments Process
Process for Proposing Amendments
This Act establishes a structured, adaptive process to propose amendments in response to emerging challenges, ensuring that the Act evolves with the nationâs legal and technological landscape. The amendment process shall include:
Periodic Assessment of New Legal Interpretations: The FRTCOC will monitor court rulings and legal developments that may affect the interpretation of the right to travel. Should a significant ruling indicate the need for modifications to the Actâs provisions, the FRTCOC will propose amendments to maintain alignment with constitutional standards.
Addressing Technological and Societal Changes: As new technologies and societal shifts influence the practice and enforcement of travel rights, the FRTCOC shall have the authority to propose targeted amendments addressing these developments. For example, advancements in vehicle technology, such as autonomous driving, may require modifications to compliance standards to ensure due process and individual rights remain safeguarded.
Recommendations Based on Public Input: Amendments may also be proposed based on public feedback gathered through the consultation process. If recurring issues or challenges are identified through citizen submissions or hearings, the FRTCOC will draft and recommend specific amendments to address these concerns effectively.
Approval and Enactment of Amendments
Proposed amendments will be submitted to Congress for approval. Upon approval, the amendments will be integrated into the Act and implemented according to a structured timeline to ensure clear communication to the public and smooth transitions in enforcement practices.
Publication and Public Awareness
All amendments, along with an explanatory statement regarding their purpose and intended impact, will be published and disseminated to the public. Educational resources, such as informational pamphlets and digital guides, will be made available to ensure that citizens understand any new rights, protections, or requirements stemming from the amendments.
8.1: Federal Assistance for Road Maintenance Without Regulatory Strings
Unconditional Funding for Infrastructure
To support states in maintaining and improving road infrastructure, the federal government shall allocate grants or loans specifically designated for road maintenance, repairs, and safety enhancements. These funds:
Shall not be conditioned on state-imposed licensing, registration, or other restrictions on individual travel. The federal assistance provided under this Act is intended solely for the physical upkeep and safety of public roadways, not as a means of imposing regulatory control over individual rights.
Shall require compliance with explicit guidelines stating that funds may not be used in any way that indirectly or directly infringes on the right to travel as protected by this Act.
Clear Separation of Infrastructure and Regulatory Authority
Federal funding agreements will include explicit language distinguishing infrastructure funding from regulatory mandates. This separation ensures that states can receive financial support for road projects without federal interference in their independent decisions regarding travel regulation, provided these decisions do not infringe upon constitutional protections guaranteed by this Act.
Targeted Funding for Safety Enhancements
Federal grants and loans may include provisions for targeted safety improvements, such as traffic signal upgrades, road markings, and hazard mitigation measures. These enhancements are to be implemented without imposing new travel restrictions, ensuring that safety remains a priority without compromising individual travel rights.
8.2: Incentivizing Compliance with Constitutional Standards
Voluntary Compliance Incentives
To encourage states to adopt and uphold the standards set forth in this Act, federal incentives shall be made available for states that demonstrate a commitment to respecting individual travel rights as constitutionally protected. These incentives may include:
Additional Funding Opportunities for infrastructure projects, allocated to states that refrain from imposing undue travel restrictions and that actively uphold the procedural safeguards and citizen protections outlined in this Act.
Public Recognition through a federal certification or award program, acknowledging states that are exemplary in their adherence to constitutional travel rights. This recognition serves to honor states that demonstrate a commitment to preserving liberties while ensuring public safety.
Compliance Review Mechanism
A compliance review mechanism will be established to monitor and evaluate state adherence to the Actâs standards. This mechanism will:
Conduct periodic assessments of statesâ travel-related enforcement practices and ensure they align with the Actâs protections.
Offer guidance to states on how to modify their practices to qualify for federal incentives, creating a pathway for states to enhance both public safety and individual freedoms.
Federal Support for Education and Training
As part of the incentives program, the federal government will provide resources for states to educate law enforcement and public officials about the rights protected under this Act. This education and training will reinforce the importance of safeguarding constitutional rights in all interactions related to individual travel.
8.3: Transparency and Accountability in Federal-State Partnerships
Mandatory Public Reporting of Projects
Any state receiving federal funds under this Act must publicly report on the use of these funds to ensure transparency and accountability. These reports will be:
Published Annually on a public federal website, detailing the specific projects funded, the expenditures made, and the impact of these projects on road safety and infrastructure quality.
Subject to Federal Oversight by the FRTCOC, which will review and audit reports to ensure funds are used exclusively for their intended purposes, with no funds diverted to enforce travel restrictions or infringe on individual travel rights.
Establishment of a Public Oversight Committee
The FRTCOC will establish a Public Oversight Committee comprising representatives from civil liberties organizations, infrastructure experts, and state transportation departments. This committee will:
Oversee the implementation of federal-state collaborations and provide input on best practices for using federal funds in alignment with this Act.
Hold public meetings to discuss progress, hear citizen concerns, and propose adjustments to funding guidelines if necessary to address misuse or inefficiency.
Citizen Access to Accountability Measures
To further ensure transparency, citizens shall have the right to access information on all federally funded projects and to report any suspected misuse of funds through a publicly accessible platform. This platform will:
Allow individuals to submit formal complaints or concerns regarding potential misuse of federal funds or violations of the Actâs provisions.
Enable the FRTCOC to investigate reported issues and, where necessary, take corrective actions, including suspending or reallocating funds if a state is found to be misusing resources or infringing upon the travel rights protected by this Act.
Section 9: Judicial Review and Constitutional Interpretation Safeguards
Purpose: This final section of the Act establishes robust safeguards to ensure that judicial review remains faithful to the original constitutional understanding of the right to travel. It restricts the judiciary from reinterpreting or expanding state powers in ways that could infringe upon the freedoms protected by this Act, preserving the actâs fidelity to the original intent of constitutional framers and the foundational liberties of individual travel.
9.1: Judicial Restraint in Interpreting the Act
Strict Adherence to Constitutional Compliance
Courts shall be limited to reviewing only the constitutional compliance of actions and provisions under this Act, exercising restraint in interpreting its scope. This restriction ensures that:
Judicial review remains anchored in the original meaning of the right to travel, without allowing modern judicial theories or expansive interpretations that could dilute or distort the Actâs protections.
The Act serves as a bulwark against judicial activism, ensuring that courts respect its intent to safeguard an individualâs fundamental right to personal travel without imposing new constraints or expanding state authority.
Emphasis on Originalist Interpretation
In matters arising under this Act, courts shall interpret the Actâs provisions based on the intent of the drafters and the original meaning of relevant constitutional protections, particularly with respect to the right to travel as a natural right inherent to individual liberty.
9.2: Historical Verification Standard in Judicial Review
Verification of Historical Precedent for Restrictions
Courts reviewing state actions that limit or regulate travel under this Act must apply a âhistorical verification standard,â requiring proof of historical precedent to validate any restriction imposed by a state. Specifically, this standard:
Mirrors the reasoning in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where restrictions must be demonstrably grounded in historical practice to be constitutionally permissible.
Imposes a high burden of proof on states seeking to justify travel restrictions, compelling them to show that any limitations are firmly rooted in the historical understanding of government powers over personal travel.
Rejection of Judicial Innovations in Rights Limitation
Courts shall dismiss arguments for travel restrictions that lack a clear historical basis, ensuring that judicial review respects longstanding liberties and resists reinterpretation that would artificially constrain the right to travel.
9.3: Limitation on Judicial Augmentation of State Power
Prohibition of Judicially Created Powers Over Travel
This section prohibits the judiciary from expanding state authority over personal travel through reinterpretation or doctrinal innovation. Specifically:
Courts are barred from endorsing or creating novel powers that would grant states authority to regulate or restrict individual travel in ways beyond historically and constitutionally recognized limits.
Judicial rulings must reflect the inherent limitations on state power, preserving the constitutional balance between individual freedoms and state interests without unconstitutionally augmenting state authority.
Framework for Nullification of Unconstitutional State Claims
Courts shall treat any assertion of state power over travel that lacks historical validation as void under this Act. This includes judicial findings that:
Identify unconstitutional overreach by states attempting to regulate travel without sufficient historical or constitutional justification.
Affirm the supremacy of individual rights to travel freely, compelling states to operate strictly within the narrow bounds of historically accepted regulatory authority.
Conclusion and Implementation:
This Act affirms the right of every citizen to travel freely within the United States, safeguarding this liberty from undue governmental interference. By establishing clear procedural safeguards, avenues for recourse, federal and state collaboration, and rigorous judicial review standards, this Act reinforces the fundamental constitutional guarantee of unimpeded travel. It embodies a commitment to upholding the original principles of limited government, individual sovereignty, and due process.
Effective Date:
This Act shall become effective immediately upon enactment, and all state and federal agencies shall have six months from the date of enactment to bring their practices and regulations into compliance with the provisions outlined herein.
Title of the Act:
The âFederal Right to Travel Protection and Consistency in State Vehicle Regulation Actâ