Do you need a driver's license to "travel"?

I've never heard the argument in person, before today.  I am certainly not advocating their position, but it was interesting hearing it in open court this morning. 

The defendant was caught for driving without a valid license.  The defendant engaged in a "sovereignist" argument,  making the argument that because one of the fundamental rights under the US Constitution is the right to travel, there should be no licensing requirements that would impinge on that right.   He repeatedly referred to himself as a "traveler", not a "driver" of a car.

In short, here's his argument:

1. It is well established that a Fundamental Right under the US Constitution is the right to travel.

2. The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.  Miller v. US, 230 F.2d 486, 490 (1956).

3. By requiring a drivers license to "travel", a state has converted this right to a privilege, a privilege that can be, and is often, taken away.  If you drive without a license, the city and state laws and ordinances make it a crime.

4.  Therefore, any law or ordinance that requires a driver's license is invalid and the court has no jurisdiction to convict or sentence someone for not having a drivers license, as it can't be a crime to do so.

Predictably, this argument did not go very far with the Judge. It is well established that the states have the right to license and regulate for the safety and security of their residents.  Requiring a driving test, a written test, and an eye test certainly fall within established parameters providing for the safety and security of the state's residents, whether they are the drivers, passengers or pedestrians.

This "sovereignist" argument can be akin to the movement that believes the IRS doesn't have the power to collect taxes, and so those in the movement either file under protest or don't file at all.