No, I definitely didn't say that, and I have been correcting you when you try to say that. "The transit ordinarilly excercised" is not anything like what you quoted earlier.
"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.
Nowhere does this say we have the right to travel by what you call "the ordinary transit". As I've pointed out to you before, it grants the right to travel, ordinarilly, freely through the various states. Nowhere does it try to define by what means of transportation this transit must be allowed.
See above. As long as you attempt to make the rulng say that it defines a particular type of transit, you are just plain wrong.
No, it's not. You are misreading he ruling. I've quoted it again above; read it, and you wil lsee that it does not attempt to define a particular type or mode of transport; it instead speaks of the right to transport, not the method of transport.
It simply doesn't say that.
You certainly do make the claim that, as the most used method of transport, it is the one protected as a right. As I've shown, even rights (as you define them) can be, and are, regulated.
No, again, that's a misreading; the ruling simply does not say that.
-- Bill Funk Replace "g" with "a" funktionality.blogspot.com
