My answer is this. if a drivers license were unconstitutional, how come each state in the united states have them? wouldn't you believe, after all these years, that someone would have already challenged this in court? drivers license are here to stay. besides, how could half of the population be identified, if it were not for drivers license? in my state, you can be issued a drivers license to drive, but its not for identification. go figure this out!!

The requirement under state rule, that say you must obtain a driver license, otherwise you will NOT receive the Right to Liberty (to move freely about in any means), seams to me this is depriving you of your liberties as a citizens of the United States. UNCONSTITUTIONAL????? This is my thought and make sense to me.

I suspect what the attorney was getting at is that rights are inherent - we have them at birth because we are human beings (freedom of speech, freedom to assemble peacefully, etc.). Driving is not treated as an inherent right. For example, in order to drive you must pass written and practical tests, an eye test and pay for a license. You must get insurance and pay annual registration fees. In order to exercise this "right" you must obey all traffic laws. Your right to drive can be taken away if you get too many tickets. This is the only "right" adults in the US have to be qualified for; the others you are born with. Therefore a driver's license can be construed as unconstitutional - it gives the State the power to infringe on your right to drive. It is more accurate to call driving a privilege, at least in practical application.

Drivers licenses are granted by the states, not by the federal government. There are three issues at stake: According to the 10th Amendment, the federal constitution doesn't apply to state action as long as: 1) the Constitution doesn't grant the federal government the authority to issue drivers licences (which it doesn't) 2) the Constitution doesn't prohibit the states from issuing licenses (which it doesn't) 3) the issuing of drivers licenses doesn't violate a specific provision of the Constitution. The most common argument that drivers licenses violate a specific constitutional provision come from the \\\"Priviliges and Immunities\\\" clause of the 14th Amendment (\\\"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States\\\"). However, in the \\\"Slaughterhouse Cases\\\", 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Court held that this only applies to the rights of national citizenship, (i.e. rights explicitly guarenteed in the Constitution) or, as Justice Stevens said in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), rights that are \\\"firmly embedded in our jurisprudence\\\", meaning rights that have long been established. It is clear that the right to drive without a license is not such a right. Another argument against drivers licenses come from another part of the 14th Amendment, the part which says \\\"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws\\\". However, as long as there is a due process of law to require drivers licenses, and as long as the laws apply equally to everyone, drivers licenses withstand this challenge. On the first count, the fact that a state legislature has approved the law requiring a drivers license satisfies the due process requirement. On the second count, there might be an argument to be made that we restrict licenses to people of a certain age (somewhere between 14-16 years old), and thus violate the equal protection clause. However, this type of challenge has been consistently rejected (such as laws regulating minimum drinking age), and represents a policy decision on behalf of state legislatures, rather than a constitutionally sound princple (albeit one that is unlikely to change).

The principle of the license itself it NOT unconstitutional in that you need to get one to show that you are of legal age and competent enough to drive a vehicle; in this way your rights are not violated because the license is merely an instrument to show that you know how to drive. However, your rights are violated when your license, and hence, your right to move about freely (in most cases) is taken from you without due process of law (i.e. it automatically expires and you have to pay a "fee" to reinstate it, it is revoked because you didn't pay child support or because you didn't pay a traffic ticket, etc.) And in answer to John Pennington above, actually there have been several cases. Quotes sited below are from actual cases: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221. "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579. "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941. In short: You have a right to drive; it's not a privilege. Think of it this way: you tax dollars that you work to pay for put the roads into existence for you to drive on. They are not owned by a single person or entity, they are owned by YOU. Therefore, you have the right to use that road. The only time your right to drive should be taken away is if you infringe upon the rights of others (i.e. driving down the road drunk, thereby endangering the lives of others which is a violation of THEIR rights to pursue life and happiness). The license regulations do need to be revised and fixed so that they are no longer unconstitutional.

It is unconstitutional and many people have driven for years and been arrested. I have a friend who has been arrested twice charged on multiple accounts and won both times. Now how about we talk on the topic of Income tax and how there is no law that mandates you pay it

Google Driver vs. Travler, Read Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution,( NOT Amendament 6) All most all attorneys are in it for money as are the states. Alicese is only required for commercial use of the public roads. We the U.S. Citizen own the roads not the states the state exsist to serve the citizen. The elected servants forget this. Murdock v. Pennsylvania 319 US 262 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it,and attach a fee to it. Shuttlesworth v.Birmingham , 373 US 262 If a State converts aliberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity. Shapiro v. Thompson 398 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 A citizen must be free to travel througout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation. The common means of travel is the automobile. One fo the first things u restrict in a dictatorship is travel. Google Supreme Law School

1: Ask the lawyer if HE has a drivers licenses.. 2: Go ahead and refuse to get one or renew one. Get stopped and fight your case all the way to the supreme court. Is the 50 grand you spent worth the 15 dollars evey 4 years you pay? 3: The drivers license is to show you know how to drive. The renewal process is to make sure you STILL know how to drive.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 The Constitution for these united States is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law and effect from its inception. 1. Do you have a right? 2. If you have a right and it is violated, do the laws of the country afford a remedy? 3. If you have a remedy at law is it a mandamus issuing from this court? The opinion of the court on all three questions was yes, yes, yes. Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it. "A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by Federal constitution. at 113, (1943). Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262 If a state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be NO rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425 "Any unconstitutional act is not law, it confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protection, it creates no office, it is an illegal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." Byars v. US, 273 US 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen. Boyd v. US, 116 US 616 5th Amendment rights. "...constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon." US v. Bishop, 412 US 346 Relying on prior decisions of the Supreme Court is a perfect defense against willfulness. Owens v. City of Independence, 445 US 621, 100 S. Ct. 1398 Maine v. Thiboutot, 448 US 1, 100 S. Ct. 2502 Hafer v. Melo, 502 US 21 Officers of the Court have no immunity, when violating a constitutional right, from liability, for they are deemed to know the law. Shapiro v. Thompson, 398 US 618, 89 S. Ct. 1322 A citizens must be free to travel throughout the United States uninhibited by statutes, rules or regulation. Baily v. Alabama, 219 US 219 You have a right to own and contract your labor as you see fit. Clearfield Trust Company v. United States,318 US 363 Bank of United States v. Planters Bank, 9 Wheaton (22 US) 904, 6 L. Ed. 24 "Governments descend to the level of a mere private corporation and takes on the character of a mere private citizen [where private corporate commercial paper {Federal Reserve Notes} are concerned].... For purposes of suit, such corporations and individuals are regarded as an entity entirely separate from government."(Emphasis added) Memphis Bank & Trust v. Garner, 459 US 392, 103 S. Ct. 692 Addresses the untaxability of obligations of the United States by or under State authority, (31 USC 3124, formerly 742) and provides that if any taxing requiring that either the obligation or the interest thereon, or both, be considered, directly or indirectly, in the computation of the tax it cannot be taxed by or under State authority. U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297 (1977) "Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered is intentionally misleading". Carmine v. Bower, 64 A. 932 "Silence is a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied representation of the existence of facts in question, and the estoppel by misrepresentation.When silence is of such a character and under such circumstances that it would become a fraud on the other party to permit the silent party to deny what his silence has induced the other party to believe and act upon, it will operate as an estoppel. U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187 "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased) The original 13th Amendment of our National Constitutional, which stated: "If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them." Laws for the Organization of the Territory of Michigan condensed, arraigned and passed by the fifth legislative council, (1833) Source - Michigan State Library Boyd v U.S., 116 US 635. "...constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed ... It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of citizens, and against any stealthy encroachment thereon." Hodges v. U.S., 203 US 1 (1942). "The right to the enjoyment of life and liberty and the right to acquire and possess property are fundamental rights of the citizens of the several states and are not dependent upon the Constitution of the United States or the federal government for their existence." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw. 60 (1830). "Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Hurtado v. Calif., 110 US 515 (1984) "It is not every act, legislative in form, that is law. Law is something more than mere will exerted as an act of power...Arbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the person and property of its subjects is not law." Butcher's Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 US 746 (1883)." Our rights cannot, by acts of Congress, be bartered away, given away or taken away. U.S. v. Morris. 125 F 322, 325. "Every citizen and freeman is endowed with certain rights and privileges to enjoy which no written law or statute is required. These are the fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people." Butler v. Collins, 12 Calif., 157. 463."Consent in law is more than mere formal act of the mind. It is an act unclouded by fraud, duress, or sometimes even mistake." Fuentes v. Shevin, 107 US 67 (1983). "A waiver of constitutional rights in any context must, at the very least, be clear; contractual language relied upon must on its face amount to a waiver." Regina v. Day, 9 Car. & P. 722. "Every consent involves a submission, but it by no means follows that a mere submission involves consent." Thompson v. Smith 154 SE 579. "The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by a carriage or automobile, is not a mere privilege which a City may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125. "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the Citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60. "Our system of government, based upon the individuality and intelligence of the Citizen, the state does not claim to control him, except as his conduct to others, leaving him the sole judge as to all that only affects himself." (see Christy v. Elliot, 216 Ill. 31, 74 NE 1035; Cal v. Farley, 98 Cal. 09, 20 CA 3d 1032; Mich. v. Duke, 266 US 576, 69, 449.) State police power extends only to immediate threats to public safety, health, and welfare.

It could be. One could argue that licenses are issued to protect the public, but when I see bad drivers on the road, that argument is shot to Hades. Most of our grandparents (people born in the 1920's or before) simply had to pay for a license and it was granted. I don't recall any statistics about traffic accidents dropping when laws started requiring new drivers to take driver's license tests.