Originally Posted by ND Sol

A citizen's right to interstate travel has long been recognized as a fundamental right, grounded upon the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV, Section 2, of the United States Constitution. Edwards v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 160, 173, 62 S.Ct. 164 (1941).

Edwards vs. the State of CA is not at all related to this. It simply states that no matter the person, he cannot be denied entry into another state. It makes no mention of means of travel. Edwards was prosecuted on the basis that his brother was an indigent in TX who he brought to CA. It was ruled that people cannot be denied entry into other states.

In the U.S., the right to travel is derived from the synthesis of several rights. This was quite well laid out in Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) at 125-126.

From that case: Although the Executive may regulate the travel practices of citizens, by requiring them to obtain valid passports, it may not condition the fulfillment of such requirements with the imposition of rules that abridge basic constitutional notions of liberty, assembly, association, and personal autonomy. Basically the last part meaning that it cannot make the requirements to get a passport too much that no one can get one.

"The right to travel is a part of the `liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."

Well, that is great, but it makes no mention of the means used to travel. Using this theory of yours, anyone should be able to fly their own airplane, rocketship, or whatever.