Former fiancé sues $188 million Powerball jackpot winner

Well not sure what the right to travel has to with this case but under the privilege and immunities clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court has ruled that there is a constitutional right for individuals to travel between and among the states. I am not aware of any method of travel (legal and not dangerous to others) that has been specifically excluded.

That's how "the right to travel" came up.. as in not needing a "License" to operate your personal vehicle,.. as long as you're NOT involved with "commercial transportation"...

*Open up a Bar ?... You need Liquor license.

* Open up a Law Office?, you need Law license..

* Open up a Doctor's Office?, you need Medical license...etc...

But when you open up your car door to get in it?....what COMMERCIAL business are you engaging in?... NONE... Therefore, you don't need "Driver's license"...!!

We all participate in the "verb"(driving)..

but everyone who sits behind the steering wheel of a car is NOT A "DRIVER" (noun).!

A driver is someone HIRED to drive the public roads for PROFIT..!!

Of course any State will take your money if you're dumb enough to give it away,..

So, again , those cars are his to drive when he gets out of incarceration, whether he has a driver license or not..as long as the taxes are paid on them..!!

            Naaah , that's REAAL TALK..! 

-Stat$talker 

Taking your trolling to the next level: crank legal theories

Everyone knows YOU are the trolling King..!! never without your cyber stick stirring chit up..

Excuse me for not checkin with Ole cottoneyedjoe before posting my opinion..!! ...

Upset because you're not the only member well versed on topics other than Math?... would you rather become known as greeneyedjoe?..

" I am not aware of any method of travel (legal and not dangerous to others) that has been specifically excluded."

Are you telling us that you're not aware that traveling by car and operating a car are different things? If that's an unfamiliar concept maybe somebody who specializes in civil rights or constitutional law would be best, but I expect that anyone with a decent grasp of basic legal concepts could explain the difference and why your right to travel is irrelevant to driving a car.

"everyone who sits behind the steering wheel of a car is NOT A "DRIVER" "

Of course you don't become a driver just by sitting behind the wheel. To be a driver you need to actually operate the car. Maybe your mechanic can explain the concept to you, along with what all the controls do.

Looks like our " attorney " is mad because I pointed out some basic Consituational  law.  He still cannot grasp basic legal concepts and I have been right every time including the instance with the woman in New Hampshire who sued for anonymity for her lottery win. Most high schoolers have a better understanding of the law.

What else has he got to do all day long????  Lol lol

I hope they end up dead broke, they didn't deserve that hitter.  They only won because they bought tickets in a state that's never sold a losing ticket.

"Looks like our " attorney " is mad because I pointed out some basic Consituational law."

I know it's confusing, but the constitutional right is to travel. I can see how people who don't understand that driving a car isn't the same as traveling by car might think that a right to travel means you have a right to drive, but traveling and driving are different things.

Are you aware of any exclusions saying you lose your right to travel if you're drunk? Or any exclusions that restrict yu right to travel based on speed? I ask because it should be obvious that the same "logic"  would mean that absent an exception for traveling if you're drunk or restrictions on the speeds at which you're allowed to travel laws against drunk driving or speeding would be unconstitutional.

I'm completely willing to accept that you and stat honestly believe that the constitution prohibits license requirements, laws against drunk driving, and laws against speeding. I just don't see how you can believe that if you're not unusually stupid.

Not exactly sure what "Consituational" law means, but Constitutional law applies to traveling across state lines regardless whether it's in a car, bus, train, plane, walking, or riding a unicycle. It's why people don't need a passport crossing the Lincoln Tunnel, but need one to cross the Windsor Tunnel.

"believe that the constitution prohibits license requirements"

Not just them, 43 U.S. Senators don't understand the Constitution.

You're just being conversationally combative...

and those other 43 Senators mentioned?.. must be ReTrumplicans...not giving a chit about doing what's Constitutionally appropriate..!!

So, what's next?,.. a license to live in your house?, to walk down a public street?, to use the English language? to read?, to speak?.. If so , then this is the land of the licensed, not the FREE..!!

-Stat$talker 

"That's why she said the underlined"

I know you're both confused, but that part has nothing to do with how our rights work.

"ALL "Licenses" are issued granting permission to engage in "Commercial" business within the State's borders"

If you want to know how things really work you'll need to stop "learning" the law from the sovereign citizen's playbook. That or give us th elink tot eh YouTube video where th cops break your window and drag your stupid ass out of the car.

"you don't need a license to own a gun..!!"

You should ask Google about that.

"and those other 43 Senators mentioned?"

I'd guess it's a reference to the impeachment vote, but without more context I'm not sure. What I am sure about is that there's a strong correlation between   bumper stickers and grandstanding about defending the Constitution, and a failure to actually understand the constitution.