OuTcAsT, you need to quote a bit more from
Chicago Motor Coach than the snippet you did. There is a reason, which I will explain:
“No state government entity has the power to allow or deny passage on the highways, byways, nor waterways... transporting his vehicles and personal property for either recreation or business, but by being subject only to local regulation, i.e., safety, caution, traffic lights, speed limits, etc. Travel is not a privilege requiring licensing, vehicle registration, or forced insurance.” Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
“Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with public interest and convenience.” ibid at 206.
“The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived.” ibid at 221.
Read the above with care. Now, as to who "owns" the roads...
“It is well-established law that the highways of the state are public property; and their primary and preferred use is for private purposes...” Stephenson v. Binford 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al.
“It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state and the use thereof is an inalienable right of every citizen of the state.” Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 547.
“The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
There are hundreds of court cases (case law) that state that not only travel, for personal use, but actually driving your own vehicle, for personal use, is a right of Liberty and not a privilege.
What these cases have in common is that they were taken up by commercial entities to try and get out of paying fines for commercial use (in one form or another). What the courts have all said, is that for commercial purposes, the State has the power to demand you be licensed (intrastate commerse power).
A license for the "privilege" of driving has become so ingrained upon the public, police and the courts, that you will have to prove that it is not required, and in fact violates your common law rights.
The problem with having a license to drive, is that you have voluntarily made a contract with the state. When you buy into the States regulatory scheme, you have waived your natural rights (liberties) for the privilege of statutory “rights.” Now you are under the authority of the State as to how and when and with what you can travel. That includes mandatory vehicle emission checks; Mandatory insurance requirements; Mandatory seatbelt laws... The whole nine yards (vehicle "registration" is a personal property tax and is a different animal), and yes, mandatory sobriety check points.
Anyone may drive without having a state mandated license. But to do that, you will find that you will have to shell out tens of thousands of dollars in various legal fees. The courts will find in your favor. But simply drive out of the jurisdiction of that court, and you will face the same thing in another jurisdiction.
Spats McGee said:
DWI checkpoints have been upheld as constitutional.
Sure they have been. But they do so in context of being regulated by that license. Assuming you can prove that you are not required to have that permit to exercise a right, then the courts will be forced to look at such regulation in a different light. Will it still be constitutional? We simply do not know.
