Did you know...

UPDATE: 9/2/25 

The following information is misleading (Did you know, shown below).   While the references are correct, and the cases are valid, and the quotes are valid... the implication is that the "SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES has ruled driving without a license is legal.  SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) never said that !  SCOTUS has never ruled on that issue !   AND... the cases cited are from State courts, and, many of those cases were decided on very narrow issues having nothing to do with the legality of driving without a State issued drivers license.  

The legality of State issued drivers licenses are mandated by the individual State legislators, and upheld by the State courts, and this is done under the concept of “public safety”.  Yes, it’s for your own good that this is allowed, in spite of the “right to freely travel” concept in the US Constitution, and it’s done to keep you “safe”.  Some of the most egregious laws that are repugnant to the Constitution have been passed using the concept of “for your safety”.   Example: the Second Amendment states “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”, yet there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of laws that have been passed that do a lot of infringement on that right. 

In the landmark SCOTUS case of Marbury v. Madison the following is quoted…”any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is considered void and cannot be enforced”.  But that was back in 1803, and a lot has changed since then, namely the concept of “public safety”.   Under the guise of public safety apparently there is no law too repugnant to the Constitution that couldn’t be passed and set into law. 

That is until the SCOTUS decided the (second amendment) case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022.  In that ruling SCOTUS said that no longer could laws be enacted based purely on the concept of public safety (speaking of gun laws), but had to be combined with the concept of "historical tradition of firearm regulation".  In other words, if that regulation was not in place when the Constitution was written, then it is illegal for it to be in place now under the concept of public safety.  The Bruen case, I think, could be the concept with which many of these laws that were passed under the concept of public safety, could be overturned, including the driver’s license issue. 

So in short… as of this writing, it IS legal for states to require a license to “travel freely” on the roads of the United States.  Just rest assured… this is required “for your safety” !  Aren’t you glad you have a government that has your best interest at heart… lol !

Did you know...

That citizens of the US, that are NOT operating a business for money, do not need a drivers license to travel on any US road ?  Yes, that's accurate.  Look it up using the references below.  The Supreme law of the land (the Constitution) gives you the Right to Travel, and any law repugnant to the Constitution is thereby invalid.  Check this site out and you will find numerous court decisions upholding the Right for citizens to travel on the highways WITHOUT a license.  The underlying concept is... it's your Right to be able to travel freely on the roads, and no state shall turn that Right into a "privilege" and require you to pay for such.  Nor can any state create laws that punish you (access fines) for exercising your inalienable right to travel freely.  Can you imagine needing a license to speak freely ?  Now, keep in mind... if you are engaged in commerce this does not apply, such a being paid to drive, or charging money to take people or goods to other places, etc.

The "Bill of Rights" 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution not a bill of privileges-Rights that can not be taken way unless you acknowledge them being converted to a privilege. You acknowledge that when you apply for and sign the so-called drivers license. Think about a marriage license for a minute, why does the state have to have a hand in it? When you apply for a marriage license you are giving the state jurisdiction over your life.

The 5th Amendment States:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty , or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

If ever a judge understood the public's right to use the public roads, it was Justice Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:

"Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this, arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment." Robertson vs. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.

The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of Citizens throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, i.e., that of state government.

The "most sacred of liberties" of which Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty. The definition of personal liberty is:

"Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property ... and is regarded as inalienable." 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987

Remember, it's all about JURISDICTION! 

This case Washington v. Port is important as it details how the case for the right to drive can be won. Port lost the case because of her error in admitting the state had a right. Read the case and you will soon see how she could easily have won. She actually had won the case until she said the wrong thing.

The following argument has been used in at least three states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia) as a legal brief to support a demand for dismissal of charges of "driving without a license." It is the argument that was the reason for the charges to be dropped, or for a "win" in court against the argument that free people can have their right to travel regulated by their servants. These arguments can be used in nearly any state against the state trying to deny a driver's right to travel.

The forgotten legal maxim is that free people have a right to travel on the roads which are provided by their servants for that purpose, using ordinary transportation of the day. Licensing cannot be required of free people, because taking on the restrictions of a license requires the surrender of a right. The driver's license can be required of people who use the highways for trade, commerce, or hire; that is, if they earn their living on the road, and if they use extraordinary machines on the roads. If you are not using the highways for profit, you cannot be required to have a driver's license.

Now, in practice is it possible to beat a driving without a license citation... I think the materials cited here clearly indicate YES.  However... any jurisdiction will come at you with everything they have because they can't have this information getting out.  Even the Judge hearing the case will likely be against you.  Can you imagine the economic impact of the millions of US citizens not having to deal with the DMV ?  The states would need less employees, cops, courts, lawyers, etc, etc, etc.  There would be a ripple effect throughout the economy.  However, the law (and Constitution) is on your side.  If done properly you should be successful... because its the LAW !  It's your RIGHT to "travel", and no government entity can take that right away from you.  The only way you can lose a RIGHT... is if you voluntarily give it away.  In ANY traffic stop you have the right to invoke your 5th amendment right to remain silent.  Exercising that right is the only words you speak that CAN'T be used against you in a court of law.  Don't voluntarily give up that right.   Don't answer possibly incriminating questions like, Where are you coming from, Where are you going, Have you been drinking, Do not consent to any searches or seizures.  ALL of these type question have nothing to do with having a tail light out or speeding.  They are questions to later be used for probable cause to jam you up for something else.  Think that would never happen to you... take alook at our Policing in America post.  You will never look at cops the same way again.