Legal Question in Constitutional Law in Idaho

Re: constitutionality of required auto insurance

There is no constitutional right to drive a motor vehicle. Travel contemplates the right of movement, not the means. Driving has always been held to be a privilege, not a right, and any reasonable conditions, such as the requirement of mandatory liability insurance, may be attached to that right without constitutional violation.

Re: constitutionality of required auto insurance

The right to travel is not the same as a right to drive a car. You are indeed free to travel about the country -- as a passenger in someone else's vehicle, via common carrier (as a passenger on a bus, train or plane), on horseback or on foot if you like. You have no more right to drive a car without a license than you do to fly a plane without one.

States have a perfectly legitimate right to insist that people prove they can drive safely and know the rules of the road before being allowed to drive, and have similarly strong interests in making sure drivers have adequate insurance to compensate those who might be injured in accidents.

Driving a car is a privilege which is easy enough to attain under the current licensing system. If you ave been unable to obtain a license, it is likely because you have failed your driving test and thus should not be operating a car.