us-supreme-court-says-license-necessary-drive-public-letennier

Well, one could always test it out, but I wouldn't recommend it. The article begins with a partial quote from the inaugural of the opinion in Thompson v Smith. The full inaugural reads: (pay special attention to the third paragraph)

"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 possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right in so doing 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 purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which a city may permit or prohibit at will."

"The exercise of such a common right the city may, under its police power, regulate in the interest of the public safety and welfare; but it may not arbitrarily or unreasonably prohibit or restrict it, nor may it permit one to exercise it and refuse to permit another of like qualifications, under like conditions and circumstances, to exercise it."

"The regulation of the exercise of the right to drive a private automobile on the streets of the city may be accomplished in part by the city by granting, refusing, and revoking, under rules of general application, permits to drive an automobile on its streets; but such permits may not be arbitrarily refused or revoked, or permitted to be held by some and refused to other of like qualifications, under like circumstances and conditions."

The case cited was not from SCOTUS, but rather from the Virgina Supreme Court in 1930. The remaining quotes and citations are irrelevant and equally cherry picked to misrepresent. The courts have never ruled that requiring drivers licenses unconstitutional.

I need to look into it more...

After reading all that it is clear that a POV need not be registered, insured, or the operator have a liscense. This would be a tough argument if stopped by a cop, which that act itself is also technically illegal, but a tough one to sell in court. However, precident is obviously there to fundamentally own and operate a car on public roads without a liscence, registration or insurance. At the same time by these same precedence, if you drive by a toll booth they can not stop you or fine you either provided you are not driving for a business or carrying passenger for hire..