Yes. The constitutionally protected "Right to Travel" in the USA is hopelessly confused with the Common Law right of freedom of movement. The whole point of "Right to Travel" was to prevent States from running their own Citizenship laws: all US citizens should have equal rights under the laws of each State, regardless of their State of birth/origin/residence/etc. Obviously this has nothing to do with the act of travelling. This is why you can't use it to challenge a State's right to legislate vehicle registration and road user licencing rules. One of the "Right to Travel" precedents that SovCits quote is about a Pennsylvania Bus Company (?from memory) - a State tried to apply different licensing rules depending on where a bus company was based, the company being treated unfairly successfully overturned those laws as being in breach of the "Right to Travel" aka the right to be treated equally. Nothing to do with a driver wanting to drive without a licence.
@@richardpj847 The supreme court was very specific and found "Right to travel" refers to 3 concepts. 1: being allowed to cross state borders without need for license. 2: to be allowed to move to a new state as if you lived there. 3: to be treated like you live in that state when you are visiting. Of course they say it in more fancy legal ways, but that is the jist of it. Sovcits tend to try and insert the word "traveling" into the driving that they are doing and try to make a privilege a right. It never works.
