Cornelius J. McIver
[my address]

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation
[their address]

Attn: Harold H. Cramer

April 2, 1999

Certified Mail No. Z 463 684 115

Re: Social security number on Application for Driver's License

Dear Assistant Chief Counsel Cramer,

I am acknowledging receipt of your letter dated, February 25, 1999, regarding the social security requirement as part of the licensing process. Please find a copy of your letter to me enclosed. Thank you for responding.

I'll be as brief & concise as possible. I will no longer address the Privacy Act issues here.

First, it appears from your letter that you are unaware that I have no Social Security Number. Please keep that in mind for future correspondence, and kindly inform others that may respond in your place.

You stated that Congress, in some situations mandated that states collect Social Security information from applicants for licensing purposes, and in other situations merely allowed them to collect it. I believe you refer to 49 CFR 383.153 as being the regulation that requires the furnishing and collection of SSNs for licensing purposes. Of course, that pertains only to commercial driver licenses, which I am not seeking, so that does not interest me at all.

I do not contest that "states" (as defined by 42 USC 405 (c)(2)(C)(vii)) are authorized to utilize SSNs for licensing purposes. Those that have SSNs might be well required to furnish them to states as a condition to obtain a license. However, it is apparently the position of PennDOT that states may deny licenses to persons that have no Social Security number. I am convinced this cannot possibly be true.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may not delegate law making power to persons or seats of government that are foreign to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I.e. the commonwealth obviously cannot pass a law that would allow the government of Maryland to set the requirements for obtaining driver licenses. This would be an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.

Obviously, Congress is the federal body that is authorized to create laws which dictate who is eligible to obtain SSNs. If it were to be construed that Pennsylvania law required all license applicants to have SSNs, then Pennsylvania would be delegating power to Congress to decide who is eligible to have a Pennsylvania driver's license. Obviously, Congress is not authorized to participate in Pennsylvania's legislative process. Any such participation would clearly be unconstitutional. This is why you continue to be unable to show any commonwealth law that authorizes the commonwealth to deny licenses to those without SSNs or makes the possession of an SSN a prerequisite for any purpose whatsoever.

Again, requiring those with SSNs to furnish them, and requiring those without SSNs to apply for them are two (2) extremely different things. Pennsylvania cannot constitutionally deny any right, benefit or privilege to persons solely because they have no SSN.

I can only conclude from your description of the licensing program that all driver license applicants are automatically presumed guilty of drunken driving crimes in other states until they prove otherwise. Apparently then, the true purpose of providing an SSN is not to prove identity, it's to prove innocence. The fact that it proves "identity" (if that is what it can be called), is merely incidental to that end. I always thought that within this great country, we were innocent until proven guilty. It appears that the reverse is true for all Pennsylvania license applicants.

When I asked if the state was within constitutional and moral grounds to bar "any class of people it wishes" from driving, you responded with "This isn't just any class of people that we are barring from the highways; only the dangerous ones." Sir, the class of people I was referring to are those without SSNs, a class of people of which I am a member. If you have evidence that people without SSNs are dangerous drivers, I urge you to report me to the police, along with all the evidence you have that I am a threat to society or have ever harmed anyone.

In order to help resolve this matter, I demand to know where the commonwealth obtains jurisdiction to create laws to regulate driving. I have read the commonwealth constitution and found such jurisdiction for public schools, property taxes and other matters, but have not been successful in identifying the jurisdiction for driving regulations. Your enclosing such in your reply would be most appreciated.

Any statements of fact presented herein which are not rebutted within 30 days of your receipt of this letter will be presumed true and correct. Of course, as I previously outlined, I intend to hold the commonwealth fully responsible for any and all damages I suffer as a result of your continuing unlawful and unconstitutional acts of discrimination.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Cornelius J. McIver

Encl: copy, your letter to me, dated, February 25, 1999

Cc:
Honorable Michael Waugh

Pennsylvania State Police

All information presented here is done so under the protection of the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and article I section 2 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, as established in the famous trial of William Penn in August 1670, and contrary to the unlawful instructions given by most American judges, in addition to judging the facts of a case, juries also have the right and duty to pass judgement on the law (meaning they may acquit a violator of the law if they believe the law in question is unconstitutional, immoral, just plain stupid, or if the penalty is deemed too harsh). Juries are also lawfully free to vote according to their conscience, above all other considerations.