Escobedo v. State 35 C2d 870 in 8 Cal Jur 3d p.27 “RIGHT — A legal RIGHT, a constitutional RIGHT means a RIGHT protected by the law, by the constitution, but government does not create the idea of RIGHT or original RIGHTS; it acknowledges them”;

Schecter v. Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. 273, 380 P.2d 136 (1963)
Clarified that financial responsibility laws must not infringe on the constitutional right to travel; Licensing applies to commercial drivers, not private citizens using conveyances for personal travel;

Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22. “Traffic infractions are not a crime”

Thompson v. Smith, 155 Va. 367 (1930)
Held that the right to travel is a common law right, not a privilege granted by the state; The state may regulate but not prohibit travel; Traveling is a fundamental right, driving is a liberty, not a license-based privilege; The court held that the right to travel is a common law right, and while the state may regulate traffic for safety, it cannot convert a right into a privilege by requiring a license for non-commercial use;
Teche Lines v. Danforth, 195 Miss. 226, 12 So.2d 784 (1943)
Distinguished between commercial transportation and private travel, affirming that regulation applies to business use, not personal conveyance; “Private travel is not subject to the same licensing or oversight”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham 394 U.S. 147 (1969). “With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority.”
Berberian v. Lussier, 87 R.I. 226, 139 A.2d 869 (1958)
Affirmed that travel is a fundamental right protected by due process. The court recognized that automobiles are essential to modern life and personal liberty; “The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.”;
People v. Battle, 198 Cal.App.4th 50, 129 Cal. Rptr. 890, 583 P.2d 748 “Persons faced with an unconstitutional licensing law which purports to require a license as a prerequisite to exercise of right… may ignore the law and engage with impunity in exercise of such right.

Holland v. Shackelford, 220 Ga. 104, 137 S.E.2d 298 (1964)
Affirmed that a landowner has a protected right to ingress and egress via public roads. Obstruction without lawful authority constitutes trespass and violates access rights; “There can be no question of the right of automobile owners to occupy and use the public streets of cities, or highways in the rural districts.”

	Liebrecht v. Crandall, 126 N.W. 69, 110 Minn. 454, 456 “The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of persons on highways.”;
Stavola v. Palmer, 136 Conn. 670, 73 A.2d 831 (1950)
Clarified that a highway is a public way open to all; The court emphasized the distinction between public and private roads and affirmed the public’s right to unobstructed travel

We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his Rights are the refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers for that purpose.“

Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 US 43, 74-75

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."
Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."
Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163
The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Thompson vs. Smith, 154 SE 579

the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.“

Ex Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 SE 781

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."
Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 78