Mr. Cornelius J. Melver
[My address]

Re: Social Security Number on Application for Driver's License

Dear Mr. MeIver:

Reference is made to your letter dated April 2, 1999, addressed to my attention, and concerning the above-referenced subject.

I believe that you've made four points, and asked one question. First of all, let me address your points.

First of all, you say that I am unaware that you have no Social Security Number. I'm not unaware that you have no Social Security Number. I just don't know whether or not you have a Social Security Number. From your previous correspondence I have been able to infer that you allegedly have no Social Security Number. If this is true, this is not particularly helpful to you because Section 1510 of the Vehicle Code requires that you provide the Department with your Social Security Number in order to obtain a driver's license. If the waiver mentioned in Section 1510(f) is not available, then one must have a Social Security Number and provide it to the Department before they can become licensed. It's not that Pennsylvania delegated this power to Congress, and its not that Congress usurped Pennsylvania's power in this area. According to United States Supreme Court Cases, Congress could usurp this area of the law and require the Social security Number in every instance, as they have done with commercial vehicles. But, they have not usurped this area, and it is the state that is allowed to set up the rules for licensing. Pennsylvania has done so and, with the permission of the Federal Statute to use the Social Security Number, insists, on its own Legislative authority, that people provide us Social Security Numbers in order to become licensed.

My statement does not at all assume that all applicants are automatically presumed guilty of drunken driving. My point, and the point of the Legislature making this law, is that we cannot know which drivers are bad drivers and which are not, unless we can examine their records from other states. A growing number of people are presently involved in driver license fraud. Many of them are going to court to change their name in order to attempt to fool driver licensing authorities. Since the name is so easily changeable, there must be one central identifier which is not changeable, and which can identify every driver so that this state and other states can distinguish the good driver from the bad driver. This is not condemning all drivers as drunken drivers, this is a screening process to make it safer for all drivers on the highway. We are not talking about innocence or guilt here, we are merely talking about the right to apply to receive the privilege of driving in Pennsylvania. In order to obtain this privilege the state can put reasonable qualifications, and displaying the Social Security Number is one of them. Of course you realize how facetious your comment is about providing you with information that all people without Social Security Numbers are dangerous drivers. That is not at all what my letter suggested. The classification that we are after is dangerous drivers, it is merely that we, as mortal human beings, are unable to identify the dangerous drivers unless we can identify the drivers.

I will not cite for you chapter and verse, but ever since the very earliest driver license suspension cases, drivers have challenged the Constitutional powers of the Administrative Branch of Government to suspend and otherwise control and regulate the privilege to drive. Without exception, the Commonwealth's highest court has held that the Administrative Branch of Government does have that power. See for instance the first driver license case, Commonwealth v. Funk, 323 Pa. 292 (1936).

Finally, please be advised that you are fully responsible for any and all the consequences that you cause by your actions. Should you unlawfully drive a motor vehicle in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania without licensing, you will be required to suffer the consequences thereof.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Harold H. Cramer
Assistant Chief Counsel

My Thoughts: Obviously, the administrative phase is coming to a close. I am convinced they will never give in without a court order, or a change in the wording of the law.

Most obvious to me is the reference to the "Administrative Branch of Government". I was of the understanding that the government consisted of only 3 branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. I have never heard of an "Administrative Branch of Government". I checked the Pennsylvania Constitution, but it does not mention an "Administrative Branch" as far as I have noticed. I wonder how the supreme court could possibly rule that an Administrative Branch has constitutional power if the Constitution never mentions an Administrative Branch. I will dig up that case.

I asked to know where the jurisdiction is for the state to regulate driving. If it's true that the only powers possessed by the state are those listed in it's constitution, then the constitution must say something that gives the state the power to regulate driving. I demanded in my previous letter to know where it was, but all Mr. Kramer gave was a court case. Perhaps the case would explain where the state obtains authority to regulate driving, but it would appear that this attorney considers the judicial branch of government to supercede the authority of the Constitution. Hardly possible, since the judicial branch only exists because the Constitution authorizes it's existance.

In any event, he refers to "the very earliest driver license suspension cases". Suspension cases are different, because regardless of whether or not driving itself is a right or privilege, a driver's license is an instrument issued by the state, and the state has jurisdiction over all the instruments it issues. It's no different than you giving away copies of a book you write. You could require all recipients agree to a set of rules as a condition for geting the book, and if one person violates the rules, you can revoke/suspend all privileges related to the book. It's your book. You can do what you want with it. It's the state's license, it can do what it wants with the license it rightfully owns.

If I wanted to wear a funny hat, could the state pass a law requiring people to have a state issued license to wear funny hats? Yes it could, but only if the state had the authority to regulate the use of funny hats, or hats in general. Otherwise, one would not need a license to wear funny hats, regardless of whether or not the state was issuing funny hat licenses.

The question remains, then, is if the activity of driving or travelling down the street in my car something that the state can of Right require one to have a license to do. Is that activity something that is a legal right belonging to the state, that it may set conditions on the exercise of that activity, thus rendering it a privilege? Does the state have the authority to keep people off the road that have never obtained one of it's licenses, or agreed to any of the state's terms, and if so, where can I find evidence that it has that authority?

Of course, as a practical matter, I don't condone driving by those overly impaired, or by those that are likely to injure, kill, or damage. Those that do such things should rightfully be held fully & criminally responsible for the injury they inflict, no less than one walking down the street with a baseball bat that would do injury or damage with that. But one's Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness can still be suspended or revoked if one does harm with a baseball bat, even though possession of a baseball bat is not a licensable privilege of the state. Why then, do they require a license to drive?

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.