No, since cars had not been invented. The Bill of Rights does not mention driving at all; it was written 100 years before the first automobile. The Bill of Rights was more focused on guaranteeing freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. But it is worth noting the constitution said all powers not relegated to the federal government could be relegated to the states: that meant years later, states could decide what age you could marry, or what age you could drive.

other answers:

To expand on that answer, the Constitution and the bill of rights that accompany it does not mention 'driving' as the term and concept was not invented yet. It does however mention "Personal Liberty" and "Personal Liberty" as defined by the constitution was: "the right to move about at will from place to place therein and to have free ingress thereto and egress therefrom" put another way, by another court "To the extent that the right to travel derives from our constitutional concepts of personal liberty."

Courts have reviewed these questions many times, such as:

Each citizen has the absolute right to choose for himself the mode of conveyance he desires, whether it be by wagon or carriage, by horse, motor or electric car, or by bicycle, or astride of a horse, subject to the sole condition that he will observe all these requirements that are known as the rules of the road. The right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established and so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of fundamental rights of the citizen. While the tyranny of the American system of government very largely consists in the action of the municipal authorities, this right has not yet been questioned or attempted to be abridged. There can be no question, then, but that a citizen riding on a bicycle in that part of the street devoted to the passage of vehicles, is but exercising his legal right to its use, and a city ordinance that attempts to forbid such us of that part of the public street would be held void as against the common rights (Swift v City of Topeka 32 Kan. 671~674 (1890))
Personal liberty, which is guaranteed to every citizen under our Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, consists of the right of locomotion - to go where on pleases, and when, and to do that which may lead to one's business or pleasure, one may travel along the public highways or in public places. These rights, which existed long before our Constitution, and we have taken just pride in their maintenance, making them a part of the fundamental law of the land (Pinkerton V. Verberg 78 Mich. 573 (1889)
The right to make use of an automobile as a vehicle of travel along the highways of the state, is no longer an open question. The owners thereof have the same rights in the roads and streets as the drivers of horses or those riding a bicycle or traveling by some other vehicle (House v Cramer 112 N.W.3 (1907)
The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen may not be deprived without due process of law. Berberian v Lussier 139 A.2d 869 (1958) & Schecter v Killingsworth 380 P.d; 93 ariz 273 (1963)
The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right or liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions. Adams v. City of Pocatello 416P.2d 46; 91 Idaho 99 (1966)
The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways includes the right in so doing to use ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the the right to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purposes of life an business. The rights aforesaid, being fundamental, are constitutional rights. Teche Lines v Danforth 12 So.2d 784 (1943)

These along with another 114 pages of cases like this are quoted from "The right to travel", by Charles Weisman (ISBN: 1-929205-09-0); this book examines the right of travel and the encroachment of government to limit that right. It also addresses the question of a "Drivers License" with cases that show it is unlawful to require one.*

* Please note: courts will reject these arguments (most times without comment), Police will arrest you for making them (as noted below) and juries will ignore them as they have been trained to surrender their rights by government demand.

Warning: Buying this book, from any source, will place you on the FBI's Domestic Terrorist lists and you will be arrested trying to travel by any public conveyance: plane, bus, train. Also, possession of this book will lead to your arrest as a Domestic Terrorist and could lead to your deportation to, and confinement in Guantanamo Bay; quoting officers from the US Department of Homeland Security. (For some reason information of your rights which have been taken away is seen as dangerous by the US Government & Police officials in the United States.) Police officers that arrest you for having the book, will not return it, and will be immune from false arrest charges as well (several court cases, not quoted). This warning, and the note above, is given as personal experience.

Resources

Top Categories

Product

Company