The right to travel by automobile without licence, registration or insurance

United States

The right for American/United States citizens to drive/travel unregulated by automobile ended in the early 1900's with the advent of developing infrastructure and the widespread use of motorized vehicles.  An excellent paper on when, where and how this occurred is CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: The Orphaned Right: The right to travel by automobile, 1890-1950, wherein it is concluded "No court after 1920 found the right to travel sufficient to strike down a driver license requirement."

Application of law

Citizens and other legal persons (any entity seen at law) are required to follow all federal, state and municipal legislation/statutes/laws.  The 10th amendment provides that the states may regulate anything not granted to the federal government or prohibited to the states by the constitution.  As vehicle regulation is not mentioned in the constitution, it falls to the states, each of which have their own traffic codes.  In common law systems, courts cannot ignore statutes in favour of common law - rather, statutes are interpreted with superiority against a backdrop of common law.  Therefore, there is no constitutional or common law right to travel by motorized vehicle without a licence, registration or insurance.  Such a right could only be granted by legislation, or lack of legislation, at the state level.

Accordingly, there is no enforceable claim for damages for infringement of a non-existent right to travel by automobile.  Absent jury nullification in individual cases, courts simply cannot ignore state traffic regulation statutes.

What the courts say

A few of many examples of recent cases where people have tried to claim the lawful right to travel by automobile on the public roads are:

State v. Cason (2012)

"Contrary to Cason's contentions, persons operating motor vehicles on the roadways are properly required by law to have the motor vehicles registered as a condition of operation. There exists no inherent constitutional right to drive on public ways. See State v. Demerritt, 149 Me. 380, 383-84, 103 A.2d 106 (1953); Hendrick v. Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 622, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915). The Legislature does not restrict the right to travel when it sets conditions and restrictions on the operation of motor vehicles. See Hendrick, 235 U.S at 624, 35 S.Ct. 140."

City of St. George v. Smith (1991)

"Appellant also argues that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel without approval or restriction. It is well-settled that the legislature has the power and duty to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of all citizens. State v. Stevens, 718 P.2d 398 (Utah 1986). Pursuant to that duty, the legislature is empowered to make regulations regarding the operation of motor vehicles on the public roads and highways. Wisden v. City of Salina, 709 P.2d 371 (Utah 1985). Further, such regulations do not violate defendant's right to travel. Stevens, 718 P.2d at 399. We, therefore, reject defendant's claim that the statutes violate his constitutional rights."

Further extensive case citations regarding the constitutionality of traffic regulation can be found in a somewhat inflammatory publication Idiot legal arguments, by Bernard J. Sussman.

Conclusion

Sadly, the lawful right to travel freely by automobile no longer exists.  For the purpose of maintaining order and the safety of all citizens, the sovereign people, from whom all power is derived, through their constitutional government and elected representatives, have seen fit to enact and consent to the widespread regulation of motorized vehicles.

Related links: State-by-state Traffic Laws & Guidelines, Driving in the United States