Q: Federal law is the highest law, am I correct? And federal law
states it is my God-given right as man to have the freedom of travel in pursuit
of happiness without being governed , harassed, taxed or held from freedom of
movement. It also states that as long as I’m traveling in my own vehicle that I
own, and I’m not making cash profit from it, then a state-issued license is
just a requirement made by the state police. It’s not required as long as I’m not
harming anyone or committing a crime.
A: Okay . . . Where to start? I’ll begin by saying that I
sympathize for any officer that stops this driver and has to endure the ensuing
encounter. Admittedly, this question is an outlier, but over the last three
years of writing this column I’ve received enough of these kinds of questions
to realize that there is a much bigger issue here: When someone misunderstands
the law it can have real-life consequences.
Sometimes a misunderstanding of the law is harmless. For example,
many people think it’s illegal to drive barefoot (it’s not). Your may have
heard it from your driver’s ed teacher, who told you that driving barefoot
gives you less control (which is usually true, unless you’re wearing flip-flops
or high heels). But here’s the most far-fetched explanation I’ve encountered,
quoted directly from the source of all suspect information, the internet: “A carjacker/kidnapper will force their victim to
continue driving, but will take their shoes so that they can’t make a break for
it. So if a cop sees a pair of people in a car and the driver is without shoes,
they might assume it’s a hostage situation.” This explanation lives on the
margins of reality, but there are no real consequences to believing it’s
illegal to drive barefoot; you’ll just always wear shoes while driving.
In contrast, believing that a driver license is a
fake requirement can result in some real problems. We live in a
time where you can find the answer to any possible question in seconds. And you
can find the wrong answer even faster. If you’re convinced that you don’t need
a driver license to legally drive on public roads, I can assure you that your
next traffic stop will not go smoothly for you.
I’m no constitutional law expert, but I think I can explain why
some people think they don’t need a driver license, and why they’re wrong. At
risk of oversimplifying things, the US Supreme Court has stated that it is “The
right of a citizen to travel upon the public highway . . .” The thinking goes, If
the Supreme Court says it’s a right to use the highway, the state can’t require
me to get a license and then grant me permission to drive, because it’s already
my right. This argument relies mostly on court decisions taken out of context
and obsolete legal definitions, but there are people who believe it; I’ve met
some of them.
Just for fun, let’s take the no-license-required argument to a
logical extreme. If we start with the assumption that any person has the right
to travel on any public highway as long as they are not making a profit (an
important part of the argument, although ungrounded), they can use any kind of
vehicle they want, and they’re not harming anyone else, what’s to stop John
Travolta from landing his 747 on I-90, assuming he can find a big enough gap in
traffic? (I’ll guess that John Travolta has both a driver license and a pilot’s
license, but for the sake of this example let’s pretend he doesn’t.)
What the believers of the no-license-required viewpoint overlook
is that even though the federal government doesn’t mandate a national driver
license, the US Supreme Court, on multiple occasions, has confirmed a state’s
authority to establish licensing requirements for drivers. Our constitution grants
us the right to travel freely, but recognizes that for the wellbeing of the people,
we need systems in place that regulate transportation. A driver license isn’t
about taxation and limiting travel; it’s a verification that the holder has at
least a minimal understanding of the shared rules that keep us safe on the
roads. Freedom to travel and driver license requirements are really two distinct
concepts that the anti-license folks have conflated.
The no-license-needed crowd will try to convince
you that all you need during a traffic stop is a clearly articulated
explanation to convince the police officer that all his legal training was
wrong, that he’s really just a pawn of a corrupt taxation scheme, and that it’s
in his best interest to just let you go. If you try that approach, good luck
with that. A strong belief in an incorrect understanding of the law won’t help
in court if the entire judicial system disagrees with you.
