What's the excuse for all the hate filled vile liberals who have been rioting for the past 5 years, asshole? BTW, just because YOU call it "insurrection" doesn't make it true.

some cities in other states are even CRAZIER now

All your incoherent hogwash notwithstanding, the following facts are true in real life in the real world. [I] The U. S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that rights protected by the Constitution are not absolute and that under the correct circumstances may be regulated. [A] As the Supreme Court said in Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S.Ct. 870, 87 L.Ed. 1292, 146 A.L.R. 81 (1943), at 110: “… See for example Cox v. New Hampshire 312 U.S. 569, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049, 133 A.L.R. 1396, and Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031. But that merely illustrates that the rights with which we are dealing are not absolutes. …” [B] As further illustration of this fundamental principle - [1] Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031(1942), at 571-572: “…Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. …” [2] In Cox v. State of New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 61 S.Ct. 762, 85 L.Ed. 1049, 133 A.L.R. 1396 (U. S. Supreme Court, 1941) the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a municipal ordinance which burdened the exercise of a right protected under the First Amendment by requiring a permit, for which a fee was charged, to hold a parade of procession on the streets was valid and enforceable, and the Court affirmed the conviction of a number of Jehovah's Witness who violated that ordinance. [3] In Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), the Court upheld a Colorado law which restricted rights protected under the First Amendment by restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility. [4] Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969), at 629 (emphasis added): "...our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which UNREASONABLY burden or restrict this movement…." *[C] NOTE: In all such cases the Court analyzes the nature and significance of the right, the nature and extent of the the burden, and the importance of the governmental interests furthered by the imposition of the burden as part of the process of deciding whether a particular law regulating a right protected by the Constitution is, or is not, constitutionally permissible. *[D] NOTE: AND SO ANY CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT, INCLUDING ANY RECOGNIZED RIGHT TO TRAVEL, MAY BE SUBJECT TO SOME REGULATION, unless the Supreme Court finds such regulation impermissible. [II] And while the U. S. Supreme Court has, in a number of decisions, recognized some constitutionally protected right to travel, the U. S. Supreme Court has also ruled specifically on a State's power to regulate the operation of motor vehicles on public roads. In the course of ruling on that matter, the U. S. Supreme Court has expressly ruled that it is within the power of States, and constitutionally permissible, to require driver's licenses, motor vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility for any operation of a motor vehicle on public roads (without regard to whether that operation is, or is not, commercial). [A] John Hendrick v. State of Maryland, 235 U.S. 610, 35 S.Ct. 140, 59 L.Ed. 385 (1915), at 622 (emphasis added): "...a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of ALL motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, charging therefor reasonable fees graduated according to the horse-power of the engines,-a practical measure of size, speed, and difficulty of control. This is but an exercise of the police power uniformly recognized as belonging to the states and essential to the preservation of the health, safety, and comfort of their citizens;..." [B] Frank Kane v. State of New Jersey, 242 U.S. 160, 37 S.Ct. 30, 61 L.Ed. 222 (1916). at 167: "...The power of a state to regulate the use of motor vehicles on its highways has been recently considered by this court and broadly sustained. It extends to nonresidents as well as to residents...." [C] Reitz v. Mealey, 314 U.S. 33, 62 S.Ct. 24, 86 L.Ed. 21 (1941), at 36 (emphasis added): "....The UNIVERSAL practice is to register ownership of automobiles and to license their drivers. Any appropriate means adopted by the states to insure competence and care on the part of its licensees and to protect others using the highway is consonant with due process....." *NOTE: AND SO THE SUPREME COURT HAS EXPRESSLY RULED THAT STATES MAY REGULATE THE NON-COMMERCIAL OPERATION OF AN AUTOMOBILE OR OTHER MOTOR VEHICLE BY REQUIRING DRIVER'S LICENSES, VEHICLE REGISTRATION, OR PROOF OF FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. [III] Thus according to the U. S. Supreme Court a State may constitutionally require that one comply with state laws regulating the operation of cars or other motor vehicles on the public roads (whether such operation is commercial or noncommercial), by requiring driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and/or proof of financial responsibility. In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the right to travel does not include a right to the noncommercial operation of a car without complying with state laws requiring driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and/or proof of financial responsibility. [IV] Every State has laws regulating the operation of motor vehicles on the public roads, including laws requiring driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility (including the non-commercial use of motor vehicles on the public roads). [V] States have consistently been successfully enforcing such laws regulating the non-commercial operation of motor vehicles on the public roads, including laws requiring driver's licenses, vehicle registration, and proof of financial responsibility. You can not cite a case in which a court of appeal invalidated such a law as an impermissible burden on a constitutionally protected right. [VI] Courts of appeal have consistently affirmed convictions for violations of those laws prohibiting the non-commercial operation of a motor vehicle without the required license or without the required registration or without the required proof of financial responsibility. [VII] You can not cite a Supreme Court case which expressly ruled (1) that any right to travel includes a right to use a motor vehicle (non-commercially) on public roads without satisfying state laws requiring a driver's license, vehicle registration, or proof of financial responsibility; or (2) that States are precluded from regulating the non-commercial operation of a motor vehicle on the public roads by requiring a driver's license, vehicle registration, and/or proof of financial responsibility. [VIII] In real life in the real world, the the legal system decides, through judicial process, disputes, disagreements, controversies, or legal questions. Law, including constitutions, statutes, regulations, and decisions of courts of appeal, is a tool used by courts to decide the the issues brought to court for resolution. While the parties may argue what the law is that is applicable to the case, it's up to the court, in the exercise of its judicial function to decide what law actually does apply and how it applies to the facts to decide the outcome. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177), "...It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is....." The courts are not actually deciding cases the way you think they should be deciding cases. That make you wrong. The opinions of courts on matters of law affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee. The fact is that no one cares about your opinions, and the world is going about its business, and will continue to do so, without regard to your opinions. [IX] It's apparent that the complexity of the law and legal process in real life in the real world is beyond your grasp.