Is driving a right or a privilege?
Let's look at a few rulings that talk about rights and statutes in general:
First and foremost is Marbury v Madison (1803); A void act is void ab initio.
The U.S. Supreme Court states very plainly: "The state cannot diminish rights of the people." Hurtado v. California (1884) 1 110 US 516
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, (1966) 1 384 US 436, 491.
"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.
The six cases (among many others that could be cited) above illustrate that where rights are concerned, they cannot be taxed, licensed, regulated into privilege or made criminal acts.
Now, what about that "so-called" right to travel? While I could list many cases from lower courts that have never been overturned, at the Supreme Court level there is one SCOTUS decision that exemplifies the right itself:
"The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. So much is conceded by the Solicitor General. In Anglo-Saxon law that right was emerging at least as early as the Magna Carta." Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958)
State legislators can make no claim that the public highways are property belonging to them, nor can they claim said highways are the property of any fictional instrumentality created by them. The public highways belong to the people at large. State office holders are only political trustees, holding the people's highways in political trust for the people.
The case history of the automobile shows that it has always been lawful to travel on the public roads and streets with an automobile, for it cannot be otherwise. The obvious reasons why it is lawful to travel on the public roads, by whatever means of conveyance available, is that the public roads belong to the people and are built for, and dedicated to, the purpose of common travel. The court cites are numerous:
"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
"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 to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
"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
The court distinguishes the difference between private travel and travel for commerce:
"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.
By statute, methods of transportation are codified...
"Motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property and cargo;... "Used for commercial purposes" means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit[.]? 18 U.S.C. 31
... and further by case law:
"A carriage is peculiarly a family or household article. It contributes in a large degree to the health, convenience, comfort, and welfare of the householder or of the family." Arthur v Morgan, 113 U.S. 495, 500, 5 S.Ct. 241, 243 (S.D. NY 1884).
"The Supreme Court, in Arthur v. Morgan, 112 U.S. 495, 5 S.Ct. 241, 28 L.Ed. 825, held that carriages were properly classified as household effects, and we see no reason that automobiles should not be similarly disposed of." Hillhouse v United States, 152 F. 163, 164 (2nd Cir. 1907). "A soldier's personal automobile is part of his 'Household goods[.]'" U.S. v Bomar, C.A.5(Tex.), 8 F.3d 226, 235 19A Words and Phrases - Permanent Edition (West) pocket part 94.
As I have just demonstrated, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right. The only real distinction made is one of personal use and commercial use.
It is commercial use that can and is licensed and regulated. All state laws, concerning vehicle registration and licensing of the driver are all based upon recognition of the states authority to regulate interstate commerce... And where applicable, the Congress in interstate commerce. In every single definition of the word "Person" in every states Motor Vehicle Statutes, it is defined as a commercial enterprise, even when the term "natural person" is used, as it is always used in connection with all other terms of commercial venture. The term "Person" or "Natural Person" is never defined in vehicle codes to denote a private citizen.
For those of you that adhere to case law and precedent (Stare Decisis), I have just given you the basis for the right to travel freely and unrestricted upon public roads and highways by whatever conveyance you as a citizen may choose, subject only by commercial restrictions.
To explore this further would be outside the topic of this thread. Suffice it to say that there is enough case law here for anyone to do there own research into this topic.
.
.