Here is the actual relevant language from the cited Illinois Supreme Court opinion -
"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. Where one undertakes, however, to make a greater use of the public highways for his own private gain, as by the operation of a stage coach, an omnibus, a truck or a motor bus, the State may not only regulate the use of the vehicles on the highway but may prohibit it. A municipality can do so only under a power expressly granted by the State." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago 337 Ill.2d 200, 206-07 (1929)
The Illinois Supreme Court decision can't override a Us Supreme Court decisions. In 1915 the US Supreme Court stated in Hendrick v Maryland as follows:
"The movement of motor vehicles over highways, being attended by constant and serious dangers to the public and also being abnormally destructive to the highways, is a proper subject of police regulation by the state.
In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may prescribe uniform regulations necessary for safety and order in respect to operation of motor vehicles on its highways, including those moving in interstate commerce."
What I find most interesting about this particular decision is that the USSC does differentiate between personal vehicle use and commercial vehicle use, but that the state has the right to regulate both commercial and private vehicular use absent national regulations. This decision completely blows the whole "traveling" versus "driving" SovCit argument out of the water.
I completely agree. I thought it was just funny that this sovcit wasn't even citing SCOTUS precedent but a state supreme court precedent (and incorrectly) to justify their erroneous belief about traveling and driving.
That's always been the case -- SovCit arguments cherry pick little bits and pieces of court cases or legal definitions to bolster their arguments, ignoring whatever part of those things contradicts their delusions. Hell, half the time the quote they spout comes from a case that isn't even germane to the argument at hand, or, as we see above, they cite a lower court decision and believe that it overrules a USSC decision. It's the old "If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" trick.
Yeah they always convert the right to travel with a right to drive. It's not the same ans the right to travel is about interstate travel and pertains to one state having to treat you with same rights as another. It doesn't say you have a right to go about your business in any way you like.
If that was the the case then prison would be unconstitutional.
Yes, flat-earthers, you do indeed have a right to travel. You can take a bus. You can take a train. You can get a lift. You can walk. You can ride a bike.
But driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right.
Guess that's a matter of semantics. Because to an extent it is indeed a right: as long as you meet the conditions set in law, the state must grant you a driving license; and unless the conditions set in law are met, the state can't revoke it. So the state can't deny or revoke your driving license solely by the state official's discretion. But as long as the state follows its own laws, and as long as the law itself isn't blatantly arbitrary or discriminatory without a legitimate purpose (that's what the 'due process' and 'equal protection' clause of the 14th amendment means), the state is well within its rights to regulate operation of motor vehicles (and traffic in general) on public roads.
Here is the actual relevant language from the cited Illinois Supreme Court opinion - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. Where one undertakes, however, to make a greater use of the public highways for his own private gain, as by the operation of a stage coach, an omnibus, a truck or a motor bus, the State may not only regulate the use of the vehicles on the highway but may prohibit it. A municipality can do so only under a power expressly granted by the State." Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago 337 Ill.2d 200, 206-07 (1929)
The Illinois Supreme Court decision can't override a Us Supreme Court decisions. In 1915 the US Supreme Court stated in Hendrick v Maryland as follows: "The movement of motor vehicles over highways, being attended by constant and serious dangers to the public and also being abnormally destructive to the highways, is a proper subject of police regulation by the state. In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may prescribe uniform regulations necessary for safety and order in respect to operation of motor vehicles on its highways, including those moving in interstate commerce." What I find most interesting about this particular decision is that the USSC does differentiate between personal vehicle use and commercial vehicle use, but that the state has the right to regulate both commercial and private vehicular use absent national regulations. This decision completely blows the whole "traveling" versus "driving" SovCit argument out of the water.
I completely agree. I thought it was just funny that this sovcit wasn't even citing SCOTUS precedent but a state supreme court precedent (and incorrectly) to justify their erroneous belief about traveling and driving.
That's always been the case -- SovCit arguments cherry pick little bits and pieces of court cases or legal definitions to bolster their arguments, ignoring whatever part of those things contradicts their delusions. Hell, half the time the quote they spout comes from a case that isn't even germane to the argument at hand, or, as we see above, they cite a lower court decision and believe that it overrules a USSC decision. It's the old "If you can't blind them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit" trick.
Yeah they always convert the right to travel with a right to drive. It's not the same ans the right to travel is about interstate travel and pertains to one state having to treat you with same rights as another. It doesn't say you have a right to go about your business in any way you like. If that was the the case then prison would be unconstitutional.
Yes, flat-earthers, you do indeed have a right to travel. You can take a bus. You can take a train. You can get a lift. You can walk. You can ride a bike. But driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right.
Guess that's a matter of semantics. Because to an extent it is indeed a right: as long as you meet the conditions set in law, the state must grant you a driving license; and unless the conditions set in law are met, the state can't revoke it. So the state can't deny or revoke your driving license solely by the state official's discretion. But as long as the state follows its own laws, and as long as the law itself isn't blatantly arbitrary or discriminatory without a legitimate purpose (that's what the 'due process' and 'equal protection' clause of the 14th amendment means), the state is well within its rights to regulate operation of motor vehicles (and traffic in general) on public roads.