"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 179." So I guess this is legalese and doesn't mean what I think it says? I have read been taught that common/inalienable rights can not be made subject to licensing, because if they are they become privileges not rights. The definition of a licence according to Blacks is "permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal" I dare say God given rights are not "otherwise illegal". Rights cannot be converted to privileges or they are not rights.