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.
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?
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.