Know About Your Drivers License : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3nok7Cby28

U.S. Constitutional Right of Travel and Transport

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege but a common and fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 337 III. 200, 169 Ne 22, 66 ALR JUR (1st) Highways, Sec 163 inparamateria.

If a State does erroneously require a License or Fee for exercise of that Right, the Citizen may Ignore the License and or Fee and exercise the Right with Total Impunity.  See Schuttlesworth v. Birmingham 373 U.S 262.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

 "There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946.

The following information is  supreme court rulings and case law.

The courts are bound by all of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.  See Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 237-238 (1997); State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997) - "it is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents."

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. - South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905).

In 1945 the Supreme Court, in Hooven & Allison Vs. Evatt, 65 SCt.870, 880,321 U.S 652,89 L.Ed.12, 52 conclusively affirmed that there are two (2) distinctly different United States with TWO OPPOSITE FORMS OF GOVERNMENTS. "There is in our political system [two governments], a government of the Several [50] States, and a government of the United States. Each is distinct from the other and has citizens of its own. A person may be a citizen of the United States and of a State, and as such have different rights." U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588. - Learn more about it . . .

Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition at page 1703 defines the term as follows, "UNITED STATES". This term has several meanings. (1) It may merely be the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. (2) It may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends; or, (3) it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

1818: U.S. v. Bevans, 16 U.S.336.  Establishes two separate jurisdictions within the United States Of America:  1.  The "federal zone" and 2.  "the 50 States".  The I.R.C. only has jurisdiction within the "federal zone". Therefore, we have now set the course for understanding what has taken place.  On the one hand we have the United States of America.  Then on the other hand we have the de-facto government of the UNITED STATES and/or UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which is a corporation.

“Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of penal enactment.” [Winters v People of State of New York, 333 U.S. 507; 68 S. Ct. 665 (1948)]

The Texas Constitution
Article 11 - MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS
Section 13 - CLASSIFICATION OF MUNICIPAL FUNCTIONS
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution, the legislature may by law define for all purposes those functions of a municipality that are to be considered governmental and those that are proprietary, including reclassifying a function's classification assigned under prior statute or common law.
(b) This section applies to laws enacted by the 70th Legislature, Regular Session, 1987, and to all subsequent regular or special sessions of the legislature. (Added Nov. 3, 1987.)

The definition of a "person" is:  The word "person" legal terminology is perceived as a general word which normally includes in its scope a variety of entities other than human beings.  See 1 U.S.C. sec 1. and Church of Scientology  v. U.S Dept. of Justice (1979) 612 F.2d 417, 425.

Title 28 U.S.C.3002(10) “Person” includes a natural person (including an individual Indian), a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association, a trust, or an estate, or any other public or private entity, including a State or local government or an Indian tribe.

Here is the often-expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court, that "in common usage, the term "person" does not include the Sovereign, statutes employing the word person are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign." Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941)). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).

The idea that the word "person" ordinarily excludes the Sovereign can also be traced to the "familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of Parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words." Dollar Savings Bank v. United States, 19 Wall. 227, 239 (1874). As this passage suggests, however, this interpretive principle applies only to "the enacting Sovereign." United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 186  (1936). See also Jefferson County Pharmaceutical Assn., Inc. v. Abbott  Laboratories, 460 U.S. 150, 161, n. 21 (1983).

Title 28 U.S.C.3002(15)A  “United States” means : (A) a Federal corporation; Title 28 U.S.C 3002(15)(A), which is foreign and repugnant to the de-jure United States and its Constitution.

Title 27, 72.11 All Crimes are Commercial - The Federal Tax Lien Act of  1966 also backs this up... the Entire monetary systems were placed under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is the code that regulates all negotiable instruments.

The Legislative History of the Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, P.L. 89-719, explains that the entire taxing and monetary systems were placed under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC is the code that regulates all negotiable instruments.

Uniform Commercial Code at 1-103.6, which says:
The U.C.C. doesn’t acknowledge the sovereignty of the people or the Bill of Rights. It only deals with paper. U.C.C. §1-103.6 is your “recourse” from the U.C.C. into the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. It states that the Code (U.C.C.) must be in harmony with the Common Law, as follows: The Code is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force , except where displaced by the code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law.

Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785:
"The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state".
NY Re: Merrian, 36 N.E. 505 1441 S.CT. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287.

"The United States Government as such is fictitious and thus includes the States Government." Blacks Com. 133, Bouvier`s law dictionary, page 1215 (1914).

All Laws, which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void, chief Justice Marshall, Marbury Vs. Madison 5. U.S (1 Cranch) 137, 174,176, (1803)

Title 18 USC 9 - Sec. 9. Vessel of the United States defined
The term "vessel of the United States", as used in this title, means a vessel belonging in whole or in part to the United States, or any citizen thereof, or any corporation created by or under the laws of the United States, or of any State, Territory, District, or possession thereof.

"No State may convert a Right into a Privilege and require a License of Fee for the exercise of the Right."  See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 373 U.S. 262

The definition of a "license" is: "A personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on Land without possessing and estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is NOT assignable.  The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal or, a trespass, a tort, a clear violation of LAW and/or otherwise NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER AND CONDITION." See People v. Henderson, 391 Mich. 612, 218 N.W. 2nd 2 and 4.

The definition of a "motor vehicle" is: "Motor Vehicle" means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highway in the transportation or passengers, or passengers or property, or property or cargo.  Title 18 U.S.C. part 1. chapter 2. sec 31.

Case Thompson v. Smith 154 se 579, ruled, you cannot turn a right into a privilege, the right to use the public streets or highways for mere travel by automobile is not against the law.  

"The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and posses property, and to pursue happiness and safety."  It includes the right in doing so to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under the existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile, thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.  It is not a mere privilege..."Thompson v. Smith 154 S.E 579 inparamateria.

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a [state] Citizen.  He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.  His power to contract is unlimited.  He owes no duty to the state or his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his door to investigation, so far as it my incriminate him.  He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing there from, beyond the protection of his life and property.  He owes nothing to public so long as he does not trespass on their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S 43 (1905) inparamateria.

"The right to travel is part of Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment" Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S 116,125 inparamateria.

"The Motor Vehicle Act is not unconstitutional as making an arbitrary and unwarranted classification, in that it requires professional chauffeurs, or drivers of motor vehicles for hire, to pay an annual license, but exempts all others operators of such vehicles from tax and regulation."  In the Matter of Application of Stork (1914), 167 Cal, 294,295

“The Motor Vehicle Act classifies drivers of automobiles into two classes, one professional chauffeurs, and requiring them to obtain a license, and pay an annual license fee of $2.00, the other embracing all others, who are not required to secure a license or pay license fee, is sound classification, and not arbitrary, so as to constitute special legislation."  Ex Parte Stork, 167 Cal 294.  The Supreme Court of California Feb 24, 1914 - footnote inparamateria.  Further confirmed in Beamon v. DMV (1960), 180. App.2d 200,4 Cal. Rpter 396.

(Burks v. Lasker, 441 US 471)& (U.S v. Grimaud 220 US 506) The issue of Jurisdiction.
You will learn that when jurisdiction is not squarely challenged it is presumed to exist.
In the courts there is no meaningful opportunity to challenge jurisdiction, as the court merely proceeds summarily. However once jurisdiction has been challenged in the courts, it becomes the responsibility of the plaintiff to assert and prove said jurisdiction. (Hagans v. Lavine, 415 US 533) as mere good faith assertions of power have been abolished. (Owens v. City of Independence, 100 SCt, 1398, 1980)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I've also attached a couple of papers for you to download and print out. The first one has info IF YOU ARE STOPPED by police. Whether you keep your "license" or not it makes sure you know NOT to enter into their jurisdiction by signing their CONTRACT. The second one is something you can hand to a cop. It's on a "friendly" level that helps to remind them a few facts. Plus it is a retired police officer who wrote it.