Driving is a Right 2549

Yes, yes, of course. There are many words that can be used as more than one word form - but not arbitrarily and not simultaneously. Tree, table, file, monitor, bore, hole, rock, point, whip, saw, and drip are just a very few that come to mind right off the bat. But when a word is already in use in a printed document, you can't simply decide, for your own convenience, that you want it to be a verb. The definition as noun or verb in context is completely dependent on how the word is used in the written document, and the supporting grammar that is constructed around it, with no consideration of the personal preference of the reader.

The writing in question, quoted directly from the decision of the court, states "...an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured..."

The right of free transit. In this usage, "free transit" is a noun, a thing, to which a person has a right. more accurately, transit is used as a noun, modified by the adjective free Note the use of the preposition "of" and the word "free". If the court wanted to use transit as a verb, wanted to describe a personal right to perform an act, they likely would have structured their writing as "...the right to freely transit..." Note that in this case the preposition "to" is used instead of "of", because using "to" forms the infinitive of the verb "to transit". The preposition "of", when used with a verb, is generally only used in combination with the participle form of the verb, -- the 'right of transiting'. Note also that in the court's writing, the word "free" is employed. This is an adjective, which can only modify a noun -- free transit, free delivery, free gas, free time. If the court had intended transit to be interpreted as a verb, they would have modified it with an *adverb* - to wit, freely, and the construction would have read "...the right to freely transit...', or perhaps "...the right of freely transiting...", although the latter is somewhat awkward in use.

I hope this has helped. Legal writings are carefully crafted things, and every word, or the absence thereof, has meaning. You must read very carefully and objectively to understand exactly and precisely what is being put forth. Exactly that - no more and no less. In the quotes you have provided, the court has commented only on the right of locomotion, the right of free transit, if you will, and on the use of a public highway in the commonly accepted manner actually, on the use of a river as a public highway. You have a right supported in the law and by inference in the Consbreastution to travel from one place to another at will with no reference to any governmental permission. You have an inherent right to travel without hindrance upon public highways.

However, the court in this decision makes no specific reference to your mode of locomotion. The court simply holds that the people have a right to use the highway for unimpeded transit. The selected mode of transit, and the degree to which the individual is involved in the operation of that transit, is a decision not addressed by this court. The fact that personally driving a car is likely the most common form of locomotion employed to travel on public highways does not automatically include personal driving as a protected part of the right of free transit. The government has exerted the prerogative, through proper legislation, of mildly regulating your right of free transit in the interest of public safety. Bicycles, horses, unpowered scooters, etc., are prohibited from the use of high speed highways because their presence there would consbreastute a hazard to themselves and to the other users of the highway. Similarly, while cars and other appropriate vehicles are not prohibited from our public roadways, unqualified or improperly trained drivers of these vehicles *are* prohibited, for the same reason -- because their presence there would consbreastute a hazard to themselves and to the other users of the highway, and to other persons or property nearby.

It comes to mind, by way of example, this may no longer apply - a memory from years ago that in many rural states privately owned and used farm vehicles need not be registered, nor their operators licensed. You can just run on down to the Ford dealer, pick up a couple of F-150s for the farm, and as long as they stay on your private property, you can teach your 12 year-olds to drive 'em and help out. The difference always was that these vehicles are not on the public roads, and pose no threat to the public at large.