The 10th Amendment
The 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives the states the power to enact laws within their borders.....The tenth Amendment is often brought up by inferior courts (courts of limited jurisdiction) and misapplied to deny the people their right to travel, often when quoted the courts say this amendment states something to the effect of "the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states," but they do not mention the last part of the amendment which states "or to the people." Regardless the states do have the power to enact laws within their borders but a State's laws must be subordinate to the U.S. Constitution and to a state’s own constitution:
"Every State law must conform in the first place to the Constitution of the United States, and then to the subordinate constitutions of the particular state; and if it infringes upon the provisions of either, it is so far void." Houston v. Moore, 18 U.S. 1 (1840)
Art. 10 Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-10/
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
“While undoubtedly the United States as a nation has all the powers which inhere in any nation, Congress is not authorized in all things to act for the nation, and too little effect has been given to the 10th article of the amendments to the Constitution, that ‘the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the *296 states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’ The powers the people have given to the general government are named in the Constitution, and all not there named, either **725 expressly or by implication, are reserved to the people, and can be exercised only by them, or upon further grant from them.” U.S. ex rel. Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904)
The states have the right and authority to make and pass laws, this is an indisputable fact, but none of the 50 states can make a law that violates the people's constitutionally protected rights, the right to travel is in fact a constitutionally protected right affirmed by many state supreme courts and by the U.S. Supreme Court.
"In any event, freedom to travel throughout the United States has long been recognized as a basic right under the Constitution." Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)
"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution." Murdock v. Com. of Pennsylvania 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
"Police power does not justify any act which violates prohibitions of state or federal Constitutions." Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. State Highway..., 294 U.S. 613 (1935)
"The right to travel interstate by auto vehicle upon the public highways may be a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States. Compare Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L. Ed. 745. A citizen may have, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to travel and transport his property upon them by auto vehicle. But he has no right to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common carrier for hire. Such use is a privilege which may be granted or withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating either the due process clause or the equal protection clause." Buck v. Kuykendall, 267 U.S. 307 (1925)
“In ascertaining the meaning of the phrase taken from the Bill of Rights it must be construed with reference to the common law from which it is taken. 1 Kent, Com. 336. *126 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 42 L. ed. 890, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456, in which this court said:
‘In this, as in other respects, it [a constitutional provision] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 22 L. ed. 627; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 29 L. ed. 89, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 935; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 624, 625, 29 L. ed. 746, 749, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 31 L. ed. 508, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 274, 23 L. ed. 346, 347.’ “ Kepner v. U.S., 195 U.S. 100 (1904)
16 American Jurisprudence 2d Conflict of Laws Const. Law Sec. 97 pages 432-433 (1979)
A constitution should receive a liberal interpretation in favor of a citizen is especially true with respect to those provisions which were designed to safeguard the liberty and security of the citizen in regard to both person and property. And a constitutional provision intended to confer a benefit should be liberally construed in favor of the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiaries.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-x
