i need to know: Is driving a privilege or a right?
It’s a privelege, which the state can revoke for any reason it sees fit.
can I re-voke my licence and still drive? how about some court cases.
If you are caught driving with a revoked license in most states, the penalty can be severe. I don’t know about Michigan, specifically, but here in NJ, you can be subject to up to an additional 1 year suspension, $500 in fines for a first offense and up to 10 days in jail. Third offense is $1000 in fines, 60 days in jail and a permanent revocation of your license, IIRC.
what ever happened to the basic right to travel?
It’s not a right, it’s a priviledge, just like voting.
Not to digress, but I live in NJ and the insurance rates here suck. Sigh.
is this your opinions, or do you guys have some facts or court cases to back it up?
From here.
You can always walk. Using large, potentially lethal vehicles on roadways owned and maintained by the government is not a right.
yea i could probably walk, but i dont want to be like all the rest of the sheeple, so i guess i could go to court and find out what would really happen. i still feel it is a right to travel.
You logic that “right to travel” = “right to drive a car” is a slippery slope. By that same reasoning, I should be allowed to fly an airplane or space shuttle without any government interference, and I’m sure that even you would find that ridiculous.
The bottom line is that the right to travel (even though such a right is not explicitly enumerated) is still limited by the rights of others. For instance, I have a right not to have my life put in danger by drivers who have had their license revoked for driving under the influence. My right to reasonably safe travel overrides the rights of those who have shown themselves to be dangerous behind the wheel.
The right to travel is guaranteed by greyhound, not Chevrolet 
hey unless you boys got some kind of proof, or can show me some court case, i will go on believing i have a right to travel on the roads i paid for. i suppose i needed a license back 75 years ago too.
Fine:
From here.
Dear god you’re stubborn. If it were a right, why would they require you to wait till 16? Why would they require you to take a test? Why would they require you to have a valid license? Why don’t you go driving along without a license and get pulled over and try explaining to Mr. Police Officer that you don’t NEED a license because you paid for these roads and by GOD it’s your God-Given right to drive on them, license or not! Now, how many more times could I have thrown ‘god’ into that reply?
I don’t think it requires all that much memory space to recall that there weren’t any automobiles around the time the Constitution was penned. People managed to travel.
Uh… last I checked, voting was a right. It can only be taken away for the same reasons other fundamental rights (life, liberty, property) can- you commit a felony.
Tell ya what. Since you believe so fervently that driving is a right, why don’t you show us the law. In the mean time, from People v. Smith, No. 229137 (Mich.App. 02/25/2003):
"MCL 257.904(4) [driving while license suspended or revoked causing death] is a general intent crime. The prosecutor needed to prove that defendant voluntarily drove a motor vehicle despite knowing that he was not entitled to do so. See Lardie, supra at 241. The statute is designed to discourage persons, who have been determined to be unfit drivers, from driving without being entitled to the privilege. 1998 PA 341. We find that MCL 257.904(4) is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose, and, therefore, is constitutional. Mahaffey v Attorney General, 222 Mich App 325, 344; 564 NW2d 104 (1997); see also Quinn, supra at 187. “A statute is not unconstitutional merely because it is undesirable, unfair, or unjust.” Phillips v Mirac, Inc, 251 Mich App 586, 589; 651 NW2d 437 (2002).