Replies

The Right to Travel
As the Supreme Court notes in Saenz v Roe, 98-97 (1999), the Constitution does not contain the word "travel" in any context, let alone an explicit right to travel (except for members of Congress, who are guaranteed the right to travel to and from Congress). The presumed right to travel, however, is firmly established in U.S. law and precedent. In U.S. v Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Court noted, "It is a right that has been firmly established and repeatedly recognized." In fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all." It is interesting to note that the Articles of Confederation had an explicit right to travel; it is now thought that the right is so fundamental that the Framers may have thought it unnecessary to include it in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Thanks to Marko Liias for the idea. Thanks to W.H. van Atteveldt for the note about Congressional travel.

I have a hard time believing that any understanding of a "right to travel" -- either recent or pre-1800 -- would include an obligation on the part of the Federal government to provide a free roadway system whose design is aimed almost entirely at accommodating suburban travelers who wish to drive to and from work by themselves during certain hours of the day.

The "right to travel" that is discussed in the Supreme Court cases is not a right to travel in the sense of a right to go from your house to the mall, but a right to move from state to state. There are three components to the right: (a) the right to enter one state & leave another; (b) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger; and (c) for those who want to become permanent residents, the right to be treated equally to native born citizens.

In fact, Saenz was a case that dealt with state restrictions on the amount of welfare that a new resident could receive. The court found that such a restriction was violative of the right to travel--this, of course, is a far cry from anything that has to do with highways.