|
Again, confusion between the right to travel and the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roads.
Not a single one of those cases held that someone was entitled to operate a motor vehicle on the public roads without a DL; in fact, the Thompson decison acknowledged the necessity of having a DL.
The authority of a state to regulate highway traffic, including the restriction of allowing only licensed drivers on the highway, has been upheld repeatedly by the US Supreme Court; Hendrick v. Maryland (1915) 235 US 610, 59 L.Ed 385, 35 S.Ct 140; similarly of requiring drivers to be insured, Bell v. Burson (1971) 402 US 535, 29 L.Ed.2d 90, 91 S.Ct 1586. "The power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways had been recently considered by this Court and broadly sustained. It extends to non-residents as well as to residents." Kane v. New Jersey (1916) 242 US 160 at 167, 61 L.Ed. 222, 37 S.Ct 30.
There is, of course, always the possibility that you know law better than the US Supreme Court, but the smart money isn't betting that way.
|