In the
The word "ordinarily" is an adverb, which modifies a verb. It cannot modify the word transit in this case, as transit in this sentence is used as a noun. In this case, the word "ordinarily" modifies the verb form "is secured", which follows in the next line. In summary verbiage, the sentence would read "... the right of free transit is a right ordinarily secured by the 14th amendment..."
In the quote above the court supports your right to go from one place to another (the right of locomation), with no reference made to your means of locomotion.
No, no. You have, through simple and careless misreading of parts of the decision twisted and bastardized the meaning of the writing. The court held that the river was navigable in fact when used as a highway of commerce in the customary mode. The court was pbutting on the circumstance of the river, not on any perceived right of the users. You have to learn to read what is there, and only what is there, and not to insert your own wishes. In the end, you must understand that the right to use a highway to get from one place to another is NOT the same as the right to drive the vehicle upon the highway. Using the public highway for travel is a right. Driving yourself upon the public highway is a privilege extended to those qualified to do so.
Your post demonstrates precisely why people are required to study the law and pbutt a proper exam before being allowed to offer professional advice.
