Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FreeFromContract
This is the roadblock to Shoonra's misguided efforts to illustrate that nobody has a right to travel in their own private automobile without a license. No matter how hard she tries to twist it, there was nowhere in the common law that provided for licensing of anyone (even those in transporting goods/merchandise in horse drawn carts or wagons in commerce) on the king's roads.
The common conveyance back then was on carts and wagons by horses, on horse and by foot and of course boat or canoe by water.
|
The right upheld in Murdock v. Pennsylvania was spreading relgious tracts door-to-door, not motoring on the public highways. The US Supreme Court has already upheld the authority and responsibility of the states for requiring drivers licenses for motoring on the public roads. The license isn't for having a car nor even being in the car, but for bringing that car onto the public roads where it would be in close proximity to other cars and to people.
But, yes, the law hasn't changed about going by foot on the public roads. You can still do that without a license. And as soon as you can quote Blackstone to me about people doing the same with internal combustion engines you might have a case.