jaybird
The issue isn't "Travel". The issue is our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. Trying to change the issue doesn't remove from the fact that State Licensing Laws would presome to convert our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways into a Privilege, thereby denying us our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.
Again, you attempt to change the issue. The issue is that Driver Licensing would presume to convert our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways into a Privilege, thereby denying us our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.
State Licensing Laws would presume to convert our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways, thereby denying us our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways, without Due Process of Law. No State shall make any Laws which would deny us our Rights, except by Due Process of Law. Therefore, State Licensing Laws DO NOT play by those rules.
If by "travel by automobile", you mean "Operate an Automobile on our Public Highways", then State Licensing Laws would presume that is not a Right, but a Privilege.
If by "travel by automobile", you mean "Be Transported in an Automobile on our Public Highways", then it must be pointed out that Nobody has a Right to be Transported.
To Travel is "to remove from one place to another according to inclination". When one enters a Transport, to be Transported, they are No Longer Traveling according to their inclination, but instead are being Transported at the inclination of the Transporter.
Driving is a Right 2554JohnH Actually, I regreat making part of that comment now. At least jaybird hasn't resorted to personal attacks, like so many others I have debated this...
"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any state is a right secured by the 14th Amendment and by other provisions of the Consbreastution." - Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Nobody may be denied the exercise of their Rights until they demonstrate their knowledge of the law.
Driving is a Right 2553I'm not even claiming that driving is a privilege. Everyone has an equal right to do so within the confines of our...
Do not bother regurgitating more State Laws, as that would be more Circular Argumentation.
Show me just one US Supreme Court ruling where it supports the Licensing of the Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways. As I have stated above, the only I have found concern the Licensing of Commercial Transit on our Public Highways. Commercial enbreasties exist at the permission of the State, and therefore requiring Licenses of them is Consbreastutional. But, I am refering to the Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways.
This case doesn't appear to touch on the legality of seatbelt laws, but instead it revolved around A****er's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure.
I would buttume that A****er was a Licensed Driver, and as such, she had willingly, if unknowingly, made herself subject to Laws concerning Licensed Drivers, Including Seatbelt Laws. But, this is an entirely different issue.
My point is that State Licensing Laws would presume to convert our Right of Transit Ordinarily used for Personal Travel on our Public Highways into a Privilege.
