The principle that "No state shall convert a right (liberty) into a privilege through a license, and charge a fee therefore," as articulated in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), underscores the fundamental protection of individual liberties against governmental overreach. The ruling in Murdock emphasized that rights, particularly those rooted in the First Amendment, cannot be abridged by imposing financial burdens through the mechanism of licensing. This legal precedent has broader implications beyond the context of religious canvassing, extending to the protection of other constitutional liberties. In Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262 (1965), the Supreme Court further solidified this principle, ruling that if a state converts a right into a privilege through the requirement of a license, and then imposes a fee for that license, citizens have the constitutional right to ignore the license and fee, exercising their liberty without fear of legal repercussion. This doctrine is particularly pertinent when applied to the right to travel, a fundamental liberty recognized under the Constitution. The requirement for a driver's license to operate an automobile on public roads is viewed through the lens of public safety regulation. However, the argument that such a requirement transforms a fundamental right into a state-controlled privilege is compelling. The right to travel freely without undue governmental interference is deeply rooted in American jurisprudence, and when the state mandates a driver's license, it essentially imposes a condition—a financial and regulatory barrier—on this fundamental right. This requirement is an unconstitutional infringement, as it effectively converts a liberty into a privilege, subject to state control and conditional upon compliance with regulatory and financial obligations. Therefore, under the principles established in Murdock and Shuttlesworth, citizens have the constitutional authority to assert their right to travel without the necessity of obtaining a driver's license or paying associated fees, as these requirements are unconstitutional conditions placed upon the exercise of a fundamental liberty. The essence of these rulings show that the imposition of a license or fee on a right transforms it from a protected liberty into a state-controlled privilege, which is fundamentally at odds with the constitutional guarantees intended to safeguard individual freedoms from governmental encroachment.