🚀 go-pugleaf

Garry W <gnews3@ithaca.com> wrote:
: Good post. One quibble. You said:

: >All persons, not only citizens, have a right under the U.S. 
: >Constitution to use all highways. No highway can ever be 
: >restricted to use by certain persons or certain classes of 
: >persons.

: but there is no "right to travel" in the Constitution, and I believe Supreme
: Court has never discovered the right to travel to be a "fundamental liberty
: interest". So, there is no per se constitutional problem with the state
: legislature saying that you're not allowed to use a road, saying that only
: certain persons can use a road, or even (going all the way) telling you that
: you're not allowed to use any road. (For example: San Jose's teen curfew;
: California Assembly Bill 1151 establishing a *statewide* daytime teen curfew.)

In sorry Gary, but that's dead wrong, and you shouldn't say things
like that when you don't know what you're talking about.

The Supreme Court has most certainly found that travel is a
constitutionally protected right, a "fundamental interest":

"Although not explicitly mentioned in the federal constitution, the right
freely to travel from one state to another and necessarily to use the
highways is a basic right under the constitution".  United States vs.
Guest (1965) 383 U.S. 745, 16 L.Ed.2d 239, 86 S.Ct.  1170, Shapiro vs.
Thompson (1966) 394 U.S. 618, 22 L.Ed.2d 600, 89 S.Ct.  1322.

"The constitutional right to travel between states implies a correlative
constitutional right to travel within a state".  In Re White (1979) 97
Cal.App.3d 141, 158 Cal.Rptr. 562. 

"A citizen has a basic constitutional right to intrastate as well as
interstate travel".  People vs. Beach (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 612, 195
Cal.Rptr. 381.

"Since the right to travel is a constitutionally protected right, any
classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless
shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is
unconstitutional".  Dunn vs. Blumstein (1971) 405 U.S. 330, 31 L.Ed.2d
274, 92 S.Ct. 995.