This is codified in law and society has adjusted to it.
Example : Driving used to be considered a right, it has since been reduced to a privilege that gets revoked simply by accusation
Example : Driving used to be considered a right, it has since been reduced to a privilege that gets revoked simply by accusation
Given the fact the constitution says the govt cannot limit the freedom of movement.
The govt cannot make laws limiting freedom of movement regardless of the method as they were not given that right by the constitution. Therefore driving as a form of movement cannot be regulated.
There are also precedents discussing it
Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
Well, sorta.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Interstate travel cannot be regulated by the states and since freedom of movement is a right protected by the constitution.
You have to conclude interstate travel is a right. Granted the commerce clause can be used to regulate commercial travel but private travel cannot be ;)
The right to do it as the driver of a car is less clear, given that one can freely move between states in a bus, plane, boat, taxi, or as a car passenger.
Virginia law notwithstanding, elsewhere in the U.S., driving is not a right and never has been. Per U.S. Supreme Court law, freedom to travel includes the freedom to cross state lines, but that right does not extend to any particular mode of travel. You're free to walk, but not necessarily to drive or fly (notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 40103, because Congress subsequently restricted that right in 49 U.S.C. 44901-44902). Otherwise, you'd just be able to walk into an airport and board any flight you'd like without presenting identification.
Similarly, if driving were a right, states would be forced to allow anyone behind a wheel (ok, at the helm of a 2-ton killdozer) without being properly trained or insured first.
You have to drive a car to travel interstate.
Try walking around the nation and see how much police interaction you get :)
No, no they don't. Private property does; and controlled-access highways do; but definitely not ordinary public highways.
https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/illinois-state-...
It's orthogonal to the general right to travel freely, but the story does demonstrate how overly broad procedural laws end up being selectively and inappropriately enforced to persecute under the color of law.
Uh… Airports? Trains? Walking? Taking the ferry?
You can literally touch four states at once at Four Corners.
Consider attending law school; it's very eye-opening.
Asking the king permission to sue the king seems a bit like what the founders fought against than what they founded.
I doubt I have time to attend law school, get a degree and sue the govt before things change drastically. Not sure for the better.
Enjoyed the discussion.
This is often brought out as if to imply that the courts are correct. But why wouldn't government courts tend to malinterpret the Constitution in favor of the government?
> The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets
Thompson v Smith
You are prohibited from walking on most rights of ways not to mention if you do you will be harassed by police as a potential indigent.
Undue burden is also a metric ;)