I have a question on this part of the US constitution

[Theminecraftaddict555]

The part of the constitution that I'm referring to is "freedom of travel or movement". I have seen people claim that in the US, you don't and shouldn't need a drivers license to operate and drive a vehicle since the constitution states that people have a freedom of travel or movement. I honestly think its BS since I'm pretty sure driving is somehow excluded from that statement. I have attempted to search this up but I end up getting confused due to the political jargon used. So are people right/wrong when they say a drivers license isn't needed to operate a vehicle due to the constitution? 

 

Please keep this civil btw

[Drak3]

Freedom of travel is just the right to move as desired. It doesn't cover how you do it.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

The part of the constitution that I'm referring to is "freedom of travel or movement". I have seen people claim that in the US, you don't and shouldn't need a drivers license to operate and drive a vehicle since the constitution states that people have a freedom of travel or movement. I honestly think its BS since I'm pretty sure driving is somehow excluded from that statement. I have attempted to search this up but I end up getting confused due to the political jargon used. So are people right/wrong when they say a drivers license isn't needed to operate a vehicle due to the constitution? 

 

Please keep this civil btw

Let me try and explain this.

 

When it says "Freedom of travel or movement", they don't mean freedom on how you travel or move.

 

What it means is that within the contiguous United States (Eg: any part of America that is directly connected to another part of America), the Government cannot restrict your movements within the border.

 

To further explain, it means that Nevada cannot setup a checkpoint that prevents Californians from visiting the state. It means that the Federal Government cannot prevent you from crossing the New York/Vermont border.

 

It does not mean you have a right to any form of transportation you want. Vehicles like cars and planes are not rights. They are privileges that the Government gives to people. The constitution doesn't protect my "right" to drive, because I have no inherent right to drive. It does protect my right to walk across a state border though.

 

Why I mentioned Contiguous US, is because if you have to cross an International Border, the rules are different. Eg: If I want to travel from Washington State to Alaska, and I take a plane, that plane will cross over the Sovereign Nation of Canada, and therefore, I am subject to Canadian Laws while in her Airspace. Furthermore, Canada fully has the right to restrict anyone they wish who travel over her airspace.

 

You could, however, take international airspace, or international waters, to get to Alaska, without having to deal with another nation.

[Theminecraftaddict555]

4 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Let me try and explain this.

 

When it says "Freedom of travel or movement", they don't mean freedom on how you travel or move.

 

What it means is that within the contiguous United States (Eg: any part of America that is directly connected to another part of America), the Government cannot restrict your movements within the border.

 

To further explain, it means that Nevada cannot setup a checkpoint that prevents Californians from visiting the state. It means that the Federal Government cannot prevent you from crossing the New York/Vermont border.

 

It does not mean you have a right to any form of transportation you want. Vehicles like cars and planes are not rights. They are privileges that the Government gives to people. The constitution doesn't protect my "right" to drive, because I have no inherent right to drive. It does protect my right to walk across a state border though.

 

Why I mentioned Contiguous US, is because if you have to cross an International Border, the rules are different. Eg: If I want to travel from Washington State to Alaska, and I take a plane, that plane will cross over the Sovereign Nation of Canada, and therefore, I am subject to Canadian Laws while in her Airspace. Furthermore, Canada fully has the right to restrict anyone they wish who travel over her airspace.

 

You could, however, take international airspace, or international waters, to get to Alaska, without having to deal with another nation.

So it just means that you can go anywhere within the us borders with no restrictions excluding private property or high priority gov. sites? However it doesn't focus on how you get there? 

[dalekphalm]

19 minutes ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

So it just means that you can go anywhere within the us borders with no restrictions excluding private property or high priority gov. sites? However it doesn't focus on how you get there? 

Pretty much.

 

Anyone who claims that it means you don't need a drivers license is either incorrect, or deliberately misinterpreting the wording.

[Donut417]

14 hours ago, Theminecraftaddict555 said:

The part of the constitution that I'm referring to is "freedom of travel or movement". I have seen people claim that in the US, you don't and shouldn't need a drivers license to operate and drive a vehicle since the constitution states that people have a freedom of travel or movement. I honestly think its BS since I'm pretty sure driving is somehow excluded from that statement. I have attempted to search this up but I end up getting confused due to the political jargon used. So are people right/wrong when they say a drivers license isn't needed to operate a vehicle due to the constitution? 

 

Please keep this civil btw

Your talking about Sovereign Citizens and they are crack pots. You have the right to travel yes, but nothing in the constitution says you can drive a car without a licence. So if they want to walk their fat asses to where they need to go then good, otherwise they can go pound sand. 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Pretty much.

 

Anyone who claims that it means you don't need a drivers license is either incorrect, or deliberately misinterpreting the wording.

I don’t think so... the second amendment gives us the right to hunt and eat bears. Even the endangered ones. 

[Real_PhillBert]

37 minutes ago, fpo said:

I don’t think so... the second amendment gives us the right to hunt and eat bears. Even the endangered ones. 

The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

[Unhelpful]

8 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

Bad "bear arms" joke, I think.

[Real_PhillBert]

6 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

Bad "bear arms" joke, I think.

I hope you're correct. 

 

[wasab]

I wish to travel around in a WWII Russian T-34

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, Real_PhillBert said:

The second amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.

43 minutes ago, JoeyDM said:

Bad "bear arms" joke, I think.

[Real_PhillBert]

9 minutes ago, fpo said:

*SNIP*

Sorry, I guess my sarcasm meter needs calibration again. 

[BuckGup]

17 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Let me try and explain this.

 

When it says "Freedom of travel or movement", they don't mean freedom on how you travel or move.

 

What it means is that within the contiguous United States (Eg: any part of America that is directly connected to another part of America), the Government cannot restrict your movements within the border.

 

To further explain, it means that Nevada cannot setup a checkpoint that prevents Californians from visiting the state. It means that the Federal Government cannot prevent you from crossing the New York/Vermont border.

 

It does not mean you have a right to any form of transportation you want. Vehicles like cars and planes are not rights. They are privileges that the Government gives to people. The constitution doesn't protect my "right" to drive, because I have no inherent right to drive. It does protect my right to walk across a state border though.

 

Why I mentioned Contiguous US, is because if you have to cross an International Border, the rules are different. Eg: If I want to travel from Washington State to Alaska, and I take a plane, that plane will cross over the Sovereign Nation of Canada, and therefore, I am subject to Canadian Laws while in her Airspace. Furthermore, Canada fully has the right to restrict anyone they wish who travel over her airspace.

 

You could, however, take international airspace, or international waters, to get to Alaska, without having to deal with another nation.

IF they can't restrict my movements in the US wouldn't that mean I can legally walk across Area51 and military bases

[DrMacintosh]

7 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

IF they can't restrict my movements in the US wouldn't that mean I can legally walk across Area51 and military bases

Technically yes, but I believe government property can be an exception to that. 

[BuckGup]

8 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Technically yes, but I believe government property can be an exception to that. 

What about private property then? You can't trespass. So basically you go can on public roads and land and that's about it. I wouldn't call that freedom of movement lol

[DrMacintosh]

1 minute ago, BuckGup said:

What about private property then? You can't trespass. So basically you go can on public roads and land and that's about it. I wouldn't call that freedom of movement lol

That's why having a healthy balance of loose and strict interpretations of the Constitution come in handy. 

[JoostinOnline]

16 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

That's why having a healthy balance of loose and strict interpretations of the Constitution come in handy. 

Then throw in some outlying extremes (Typhoid Mary for example) just to muddy the waters further.