Cornelius J. McIver
[my address]

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation
[their address]

Attn: Harold H. Cramer

May 27, 1999

Certified Mail No. Z 463 686 657

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

Dear Assistant Chief Counsel Cramer,

I am acknowledging receipt of your letter dated April 26, 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.

First, please note the correct spelling of my name. I thank you in advance for doing so.

Again, I'll be as brief & concise as possible in addressing the most pertinent issues.

I have told you that I have no social security number. You expressed reluctance to believe that is true. Fair enough. However, should the matter ever have need to be settled between us, the burden will fall upon PennDOT to prove I have a social security number, as I cannot very well prove a negative.

In my last letter to you I attempted to prove to you the constitutional problems as to why Pennsylvania law cannot possibly make the application for a social security number a requirement for any state purpose. The General Assembly is prohibited from delegating legislative power to a government outside Pennsylvania's constitution, and I contend this law, if it implicitly required a driver license applicant to apply for a social security number, would unconstitutionally delegate power to Congress. Therefore, the only possible scope of this law is that it requires social security numbers of those that have them, and does not require social security numbers of those that do not have them. I do not contend that 1510 is unconstitutional, only applied in an unconstitutional manner by PennDOT. Pennsylvania law, if constitutional, cannot mandate the application for a federal benefit for any purpose.

To illustrate this point, consider what would happen if Congress were to reciprocate by requiring applicants for social security benefits to first present state issued driver licenses. Pennsylvania citizens without either one or the other would be in a legal catch-22. This should make it abundantly clear that the state and federal governments are dually sovereign, a basic fact recognized in constitutional law, and neither can require citizens to obtain documents or participate in programs provided by the other for any purpose.

Please note that I am not advocating that citizens with social security numbers do not have to present them to states under some conditions. I am advocating that the commonwealth cannot compel citizens to apply for a federal social security number for any legal purpose under any condition.

The wording of section 1510(f) of the Vehicle Code also makes it clear that the intent of the legislature is to not discriminate against those that have no social security number. I'm sure you are aware that it is the intent of the law that is the force of the law. Since the clear intent of the law in 1510(f) was to not discriminate on that basis (even though section 1510(f) is void for lack of a federal waiver), PennDOT is in error when it conducts such discrimination.

You have explained in great length in two letters the practical benefit PennDOT realizes in utilizing social security numbers. I understand that using this human-indexing system can improve PennDOTs efficiency in controlling the issuance of driver licenses, and helps ensure that those deemed unsafe do not get them. However, efficiency of operation cannot be the overriding consideration of any government policy. The burden falls upon all governments execute their duties without infringing on the rights of citizens. At least that's true in a free country. Certainly you must agree that utilizing SSNs as identification (among those that have them), is far inferior to digitized fingerprints, retinal scans, or DNA. If efficiency is the only consideration, I would expect government to require these of all citizens in the future. But for the above reasons, I do not recognize improved efficiency as proper justification for depriving me of my rights. I have a right to live without a number, and I have a right to be secure in my person.

You emphasize driving is a privilege, but privileges can only be granted by those that have the proper authority to grant them. I asked you where PennDOT obtains the authority to delegate the privilege to drive, not because I doubt it's existence, but because the source of that authority can reveal it's nature and limits. My understanding of a constitutional republic is that the only authority the government possesses is that authority given to it within its constitution. If a constitution does not give a government power to do something, then the government simply does not have the power to do it. I have checked the constitution for this commonwealth, but was unable to determine the source of the jurisdiction to make driving a privilege, which is why I demanded it be presented to me. Chapter & verse would, in fact, be preferred.

I have checked the case you cited, Commonwealth v. Funk (which I found at 323 Pa. 390 (1936)), but it only involved a license suspension matter. Certainly the Commonwealth has jurisdiction over driver licenses themselves, to suspend or revoke them subject to the review of the judiciary. The court in the above case affirms that, but this decision also cites cases that refer to the use of public highways as a "right… not unrestricted" and "limited right". I do not dispute that the commonwealth is empowered to regulate the manner in which the roads may be used, by establishing traffic signals & such. But the contention that the commonwealth can arbitrarily prohibit members of a certain group of people from driving, for no reasonable cause, remains quite dubious. Any right, even a limited right to drive, something I have, cannot be taken away without reasonable cause, which you do not have. If the source of the jurisdiction is known, it can be helpful in determining the point at which the "limited right" becomes a "privilege".

You called my previous estimates facetious when I suggested you believe people without social security numbers are dangerous drivers. If my comment was facetious, it was also appropriate, as the context of my original statement, in asking if the state was within it's moral and constitutional grounds to discriminate against any group of people it wishes, was clearly made in regards to people without social security numbers. It was you that misconstrued that statement to mean dangerous drivers, and you did so in a letter that was completely void of any acknowledgement that people without social security numbers even exist. I am attempting to communicate so that we may find some mutually satisfactory solution. Your cooperation in acknowledging my position, and the facts about myself -- at least advocate them to be -- is most appreciated.

To that end, perhaps you could explain what it would take to convince PennDOT to accept my application for a driver license without a social security number. If you tell me there is absolutely nothing I can do to sway PennDOT on this matter, I will take you at your word, and will cease any & all attempts to obtain a drivers license administratively. I ask only that you clearly make such a statement in writing.

To recap, please respond to my points regarding the delegation of power to Congress, the General Assembly's intent of the law in 75 Pa.C.S. § 1510(a) & (f), and the source of the jurisdiction PennDOT relies on to make driving a privilege. Please also explain what is required of me to convince PennDOT to accept my application. You need not explain how or why PennDOT uses social security numbers. Your response within 30 days of receipt of this letter is most appreciated. I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

[signed]

Cornelius J. McIver

Encl: copy, your letter to me, dated April 26, 1999

Cc: State Senator 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.