In Episode 10 of License vs. Liberty, Malik Liberty examines how courts protect fundamental liberties — marriage, the ability to earn a living, and self-defense — from being rebranded as state-issued privileges. This episode explains how and when States may regulate, where constitutional limits apply, and how to challenge unlawful licensing practices.

Major cases cited (read them yourself): Loving v. Virginia (1967); Obergefell v. Hodges (2015); Turner v. Safley (1987); Williamson v. Lee Optical (1955); Bell v. Burson (1971); District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010); New York Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen (2022); Shelley v. Kraemer (1948); Shapiro v. Thompson; Saenz v. Roe.

Note to critics: This episode is rooted in primary authorities: constitutional text and controlling Supreme Court opinions. If you disagree, bring the opinions and legal argument — not insults. Comments that are hostile, defamatory, or that deliberately misrepresent the law will be removed. Respectful legal debate is welcome.

(Open each link to read full opinions and authoritative summaries.)

Marriage:

• Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). (Justia)
• Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015). (Justia / Cornell)
• Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987). (Justia / Oyez)

Work / Licensing:

• Williamson v. Lee Optical, 348 U.S. 483 (1955). (Oyez/Justia)
• Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971). (LOC PDF / Justia) [oai_citation:34‡Library of Congress Tile

Self-Defense / Arms:

• District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). (Justia / LOC)
• McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). (Justia / Cornell) — (search Cornell if needed).
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022). (Justia / Supreme Court)

State-Action Doctrine / Public vs Private:

• Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). (Law.Cornell / Oyez / Justia)
• Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961). (Justia / Cornell)
• Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982). (search Justia/Cornell)

Ninth & Tenth Amendment summaries:

• Ninth Amendment — Law.Cornell (Legal Information Institute).
• Tenth Amendment — Law.Cornell (Legal Information Institute).

Travel / Licensing intersection:

• Shapiro v. Thompson / Saenz v. Roe — see earlier episodes and Law.Cornell/Justia for the texts.

News / Recent developments:

• Circuit rulings and coverage on Second Amendment litigation: Reuters (examples of 2025 rulings).

This is a quick update for all supporters of Unchained Frequency.

I’ve been dealing with a sudden illness, and I’m not physically able to record tomorrow’s scheduled episode, License vs. Liberty (Part 3): Marriage, Work, and Self-Defense.

Because I refuse to deliver anything rushed, low-quality, or halfway done — especially when we are dealing with Constitutional law, Supreme Court rulings, and educational content that must be 100% accurate — the episode will be postponed to next Tuesday, where it belongs in our regular schedule.

Thank you for your patience, understanding, and continued support.

Episode 9 returns next Tuesday — stronger, deeper, and fully researched.

Until then, take care of yourselves and stay grounded in truth.

In this episode of Unchained Frequency, we continue the deep dive into the difference between a state-granted license and the God-given, constitutionally recognized Right to Travel.

This isn’t theory — we’re working with legal definitions, case law, and statutory interpretation.

We examine:

• Motor Vehicle Code vs. Common Right of Locomotion
• The difference between “operating a motor vehicle” (commercial) vs. “traveling” (private)
• Definitions of “person” in:
  • Black’s Law Dictionary
  • Bouvier’s Law Dictionary
  • and corporate legal meaning
• The role of the Tenth Amendment and reserved powers of the states
• Marbury v. Madison (1803) — judicial review and why statutes cannot override constitutional rights
• Article VI, Clause 2 — The Supremacy Clause and why the Constitution remains the highest law
• Why states regulate transportation only when there is commercial activity
• And real-world examples of courts acknowledging the fundamental Right to Travel.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2

Supremacy Clause

U.S. Constitution, 10th Amendment

State reserved powers

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Judicial review Constitution > statutes

Chicago Motor Coach Co. v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 221 (Ill. 1929)

Right to travel recognized

Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579 (Va. 1930)

Liberty of movement is a right

Black’ s Law Dictionary (4th Ed.)

Definitions of a Person and a Driver

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary

Historical legal definitions

Federal Judicial Center History of the Supreme Court

John Marshall era context

✅ These are real, checkable, legitimate legal sources.

No speculation. No mythology. No private code systems.

Just law.

This episode is about knowledge, not conflict.

Know the law. Know your position. Know your rights.

Right to Travel | License vs Liberty | Constitutional Rights | Natural Rights | Public vs Private | Government Overreach

In this episode of Unchained Frequency, we break down one of the most misunderstood concepts in America today: the difference between a license and a liberty. Society has conditioned us to believe that freedom must be applied for, purchased, or granted by the State. But that’s not how rights work. A license exists only in the public/commercial realm, while liberty exists in the private — by birth.

We explore how government agencies blur those lines, how the courts have addressed the Right to Travel, and how individuals unknowingly contract themselves into regulated capacity.

This is not legal advice — it’s awareness. Awareness leads to comprehension. And comprehension leads to sovereignty of the mind.

Topics Covered:

• The legal meaning of a license vs. a right
• Why public and private do not mix
• How the Right to Travel has been recognized in case law
• How consent, contracts, and jurisdiction shape your status
• The psychological side of government authority and obedience

Primary Supreme Court opinions (read the opinions):

• Crandall v. State of Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867). .
• Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958). .
• Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). (See law-annotated summaries on Cornell/Justia). .
• Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). (See Cornell / Justia for full text and commentary.) .
• Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943). .
• Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535 (1971). .
• State-action cases: Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715 (1961); Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922 (1982); Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974); Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982). .
• Ninth & Tenth Amendments and Annotated doctrines — see Law.Cornell (Legal Information Institute) pages for Amendment IX and Amendment X.

Stay unchained.

Your liberty existed before the State, and it exists without its permission.

Keywords: Right to Travel | License vs Liberty | Constitutional Rights | Natural Rights | Public vs Private | Government Overreach

This is a brief update for the Unchained Frequency community. Episode 6: License vs. Liberty will publish tomorrow. We’re taking a moment to reset, refocus, and speak from clarity — not chaos. Thank you for your patience and your presence. Freedom is a lifestyle, not a performance. Full episode drops Wednesday.

Malik Liberty unpacks Saenz v. Roe (526 U.S. 489, 1999), the landmark Supreme Court decision that fortifies Americans’ freedom to move and guarantees equal treatment for new state residents. Learn how Saenz build on Shapiro, why it remains relevant in 2025, and how you can use it to confront state overreach.

Show Notes/ Footnotes:

Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) - U.S. Supreme Court

Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code section 11450.03 — California’s statute

Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)

Edward’s v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941)

Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972)

This short update from Malik Liberty of Unchained Frequency lets listeners know that Episode 4 — “Saenz v. Roe: The Right to Travel Unchained” — is coming soon.

Malik explains the importance of accuracy and truth when covering constitutional cases, ensuring every episode is backed by facts and solid legal precedent.

🎧 Stay tuned for Wednesday morning’s full episode.

Follow Unchained Frequency on RSS.com and Substack to get notified the moment it drops.

⚖️ Truth. Law. Liberty. — Unchained Frequency

In this episode, Malik Liberty breaks down the landmark Supreme Court case Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) — a ruling that reaffirmed the constitutional right to travel as a fundamental liberty protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court struck down state laws that denied welfare benefits to new residents, declaring that no government may penalize or restrict movement within the United States.

Malik explains how this case ties directly to earlier precedents like Crandall v. Nevada (1867) and Kent v. Dulles (1958), proving that the right to travel is not a government-granted privilege — it’s a birthright guaranteed by the Constitution.

🎙️ “Authority ends where the Constitution begins.” — Unchained Frequency

📜

Episode Notes / Footnotes (for RSS.com “Show Notes):

Key Legal Citations:

1. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) — Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right to travel under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
2. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) — “The right to travel is part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law.”
3. Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1867) — The right to travel freely between states is a fundamental right.
4. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) — “No State shall convert a liberty into a license and charge a fee therefor.”

Themes Covered:

• The difference between Equal Protection and Due Process
• How states tried to limit new residents’ rights
• Why the Supreme Court called travel “a fundamental right”
• How these rulings connect to modern driver licensing and movement restrictions

Referenced Legal Sources:

• Law.Cornell.edu
• Justia – Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)
• U.S. Constitution – 14th Amendment

Welcome back, Free Movement Nation — this is Unchained Frequency, your show decoding lawful rights and exposing the systems that bind them.

In Series 1, Episode 2: “Right to Travel — The True Meaning of ‘Driver’,” host Malik Liberty digs into how the Constitution and early American courts laid the foundation for your Right to Travel — long before modern licensing or highway laws even existed.

We’ll walk through:

1. Article IV, Section 2 — Privileges & Immunities Clause
2. Corfield v. Coryell (1823) — defining fundamental rights
3. Crandall v. Nevada (1867) — protecting your right to exit a state
4. Edwards v. California (1941) — linking travel to national citizenship
5. Bouvier’s & Black’s Law Definitions of “Driver” — exposing how words like driver, individual, motor vehicle, and person are commercial terms that shift jurisdiction from private to public.

💡 Key takeaway:

Words matter. When you call yourself a “driver,” you enter a commercial contract. When you travel privately, you stand in your natural, God-given liberty — not under commercial law.

Welcome to Unchained Frequency, a voice for those who refuse to be silenced.

In this introductory episode, host Malik Liberty lays the foundation for what this podcast is all about — truth, freedom, sovereignty, and spiritual awareness in a world full of deception.

You’ll hear what inspired the creation of Unchained Frequency, the vision behind it, and what listeners can expect in the episodes ahead — from uncovering hidden laws and rights, to confronting the modern systems that chain humanity mentally, spiritually, and politically.

🔔 Subscribe and join the movement to break free from control, fear, and misinformation.

🎙️ Unchained Frequency — Raising awareness. Restoring truth.

—

💬 Follow & Support:

YouTube / Instagram / X / Snapchat / https://subscribepage.io/rt6gBB

#UnchainedFrequency #RightToTravel #TruthPodcast #FreedomAwakening