Mixing the metaphor broke it. Starting again: I have a right to travel. Some travel involves vehicles, which are currently licensed. This is analogous to requiring permits and searches for specific kinds of speech.

You don't have a constitutional right to operate a vehicle in the US.

That's debateable, did you read my comment? If you take exception to a specific point speak to it.

It is debatable, has been debated by the courts and settled: you have a right to freely travel, but there is no right to use any particular mode of transportation without government regulation.

This is why sovcits who are “traveling in commerce” without license and insurance always lose their “legal” arguments. Because the issue is settled - there is no constitutional right to drive a car.

Ok, that's great, but jurisprudence only stands inasmuch as there's no new arguments. Those rulings could be overturned.

Nothing is ever truly settled. Pointlessly respecting jurisprudence without regard for time and society is a recipe for contempt of the law.

Okay, overturn the case law - state your thesis and advance a novel argument.

So far I’ve seen driving:traveling::printing:speech. Not only is that not an argument, it conveniently overlooks that we have restrictions on speech today - libel and slander, incitement, etc.

What is your thesis? Driving should be completely unconstrained by the state? Why? Or is it that we should have national IDs? Why?