[geggam]

Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people.

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.” –

[throwawayatty]

There's a pretty wide gap between what you think is Constitutional and what U.S. courts think.

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.

[mindslight]

> There's a pretty wide gap between what you think is Constitutional and what U.S. courts think.

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?

[geggam]

Problem being the interstate highways prohibit walking,horse riding and most "not automotive" methods of transportation.

You have to drive a car to travel interstate.

[ceejayoz]

> You have to drive a car to travel interstate.

Uh… Airports? Trains? Walking? Taking the ferry?

You can literally touch four states at once at Four Corners.

[throwawayatty]

Not every state border crossing is an Interstate highway having controlled access. In fact, most are not (US highways, county roads, etc.).

[geggam]

Most states do have no trespassing signs on the rights of ways though.

Try walking around the nation and see how much police interaction you get :)

[throwawayatty]

> Most states do have no trespassing signs on the rights of ways though.

No, no they don't. Private property does; and controlled-access highways do; but definitely not ordinary public highways.

[geggam]

The Illinois State Police can confirm that on August 11, 2018, Mr. David Weaver was arrested by the ISP and cited for the following offenses at the scene of a multi vehicle personal injury crash that resulted in multi vehicle fires: Criminal Trespass to Real Property, Failure to Yield to Emergency Vehicles, Stopping Parking or Standing on Roadway, and Walking Improperly on the roadway. This case remains open and ongoing in the court system, therefore we have no further comment at this time. The Illinois State Police's primary goal at the scene of a critical incident, and at all times, is the safety and well-being of all members of the public.

https://pressfreedomtracker.us/all-incidents/illinois-state-...

[geggam]

BTW how do you restrict a right without due process or a constitutional amendment ?

[throwawayatty]

The "due process" is you suing the Government if you think your Constitutional rights have been violated. See 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Consider attending law school; it's very eye-opening.

[geggam]

Also very expensive.

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.

[stordoff]

> The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare[...]

> 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

[geggam]

Cities can regulate but you have to be able to move about the nation freely.

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 ;)

[ceejayoz]

> Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people.

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."

[geggam]

States rights was decided during this little thing called the civil war.

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 ;)

[ceejayoz]

Interstate travel is a clear right.

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.