It's an interesting argument. How could that work for things like driving, where you need to prove competency before you are legally allowed to do something?
Because driving on public roads has never been a right in the US. It has always been a privilege that you are granted.
That's not really accurate. Freedom of assembly is interpreted pretty generously. It's fine to disqualify on not knowing how to drive safely, but any other unrelated qualifier would be struck down as unconstitutional.
Thats a good point. If the US did a "no drive" list, there's no way it would standup in the courts. Counter point would be a "no firearm" list which runs counter to the 2nd amendment and may standup in the courts.
Driving isn't considered a right, but also registration is with the States, not the Fed.
The case law on this is interesting. When driver licensing was challenged in the early 20th century, the courts ruled that motorcars are so dangerous to the public that the state would be justified in banning them entirely; and that therefore, it may restrict their use in any way.
Driving a car isn't a protected right unlike the other things mentioned in the parent comment.
There are people who believe that driver's licenses are a way of stealing the right to freedom of movement. But to the best of my knowledge courts have typically rejected this.
Driving isn't listed as a Constitutional Right though.
I think the important point is that competency doesn't come from religion. It comes from past actions and current environment one is exposed to.