Q: Why do people allow cops to violate their rights to travel freely without being molested by police. I'm not driving

A: As long as you are not operating a motor vehicle on a public road, you do not have to ask permission and can freely travel without a license. You can be a passenger in another person's vehicle, or can walk on the side of a public road anywhere you want to go. In that situation, police can only require you to identify yourself if they have probable cause to believe that you have or are committing a crime.

A "driver" is anyone operating a motor vehicle. It doesn't matter whether the driver is operating the motor vehicle "to commit commerce" or for person pleasure. A state can require anyone operating a motor vehicle on a public road to obtain a license to do so and to display that license upon request to a police officer making a traffic stop. And, currently, every U.S. state does.

A: You raise an interesting point about the right to travel freely. However, the Supreme Court has upheld certain restrictions and regulations on using automobiles on public roads, even if not explicitly for commercial purposes. Some key considerations on this issue:

- The Supreme Court has ruled that driving is a privilege, not an absolute right. States can require drivers licenses, vehicle registrations, and place conditions on the use of public roads for safety and order.

- However, the Court has also said that people do have a fundamental right to interstate travel that cannot be infringed. So restrictions can't make it unreasonably hard to travel between states.

- There is a distinction between general "travel" and using the highways specifically. States have been allowed to regulate highway usage as long as it doesn't violate fundamental rights.

- So while you don't need a license or registration to travel generally, most courts have said you do need them to drive on public roads legally. Doing so without can be grounds for traffic stops and citations.

- However, some argue these regulations, especially around drivers licenses, do infringe on rights and are primarily revenue generators rather than safety measures. There are minority legal views supporting this side.

In the end, the mainstream interpretation is that driving without a license gives police the grounds to stop you as an action endangering public safety on roadways. But alternatives like walking, biking, public transport remain license-free. It's a complex issue with reasonable arguments on both sides.