14th Amendment Document With Travel Without License In Clark
Description
Form popularity
FAQ
Is it constitutional for the government to require a license to drive? There's nothing in the US Constitution giving the Federal government any right to license drivers.
However, traveling does not equate to driving. In the Constitution's view, travel refers to moving freely between states, not the unlicensed operation of a vehicle. This point was strongly reinforced in Saenz v. Roe (1999), rejecting the belief in an absolute, unrestricted freedom.
If you are driving, then you always need to carry a driver's license while operating a vehicle. Therefore, if you are moving between states by driving, you will need to have your license. However, the driver's license is not necessary to the right to travel.
There is no explicit or enumerated right to travel in the US Constitution. It is, however, considered to be a Ninth Amendment right, similar to the right to vote and the former right to abortion.
“The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit ofhappiness.
It's a little more complex than that. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is a fundamental right to travel between the states, and you do not need a drivers license to do so.
A: If you're going to operate a motor vehicle on public roads, you need a license, insurance and vehicle registration. You have a right to travel, but doing it in a motor vehicle on public roads is a privilege and the government regulates that.
There is no explicit or enumerated right to travel in the US Constitution. It is, however, considered to be a Ninth Amendment right, similar to the right to vote and the former right to abortion.
However, traveling does not equate to driving. In the Constitution's view, travel refers to moving freely between states, not the unlicensed operation of a vehicle. This point was strongly reinforced in Saenz v. Roe (1999), rejecting the belief in an absolute, unrestricted freedom.
