Pennsylvania's Department of Transportation
This letter was written in response to the January 8, 1999 letter from the Department of Transportation.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Transportation
Office of Chief Counsel
[address]
Attn: Andrew S. Gordon, Chief Counsel
February 5, 1999
Certified Mail No. Z 463 684 114
Re: Social security number on Application for Driver's License
Dear Chief Counsel Gordon,
I am acknowledging receipt of your letter dated, January 8, 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 on behalf of Governor Tom Ridge.
First, I thank you in advance for noting the correct spelling of my name for any future correspondence.
In the third paragraph of your letter, you presume that the application form was presented to me prior to my being solicited for a social security number. I assure you, on August 14, 1998, it was not.
As to the question of whether state authority is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 7 of the Privacy Act, please note what my information shows to be the contents of Section 7 of this Act (P. L. 93-579):
(2) the (The) provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to -
(B) the disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.
(b) Any Federal, State, or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.'
Please note that all the above was included in my letter of October 24, 1998 to Representative Mike Waugh, which was included as an enclosure of the letter of November 7, 1998, which I sent to Governor Tom Ridge, and to which you replied.
Apparently it is your contention that the statutory authority referred to in subsection (b) is not the same statutory authority referred to in subparagraph (a)(2)(A). I also note with interest that you contend that the intent of congress in the Privacy Act is to prohibit states from soliciting social security numbers, a federal entity, unless such states authorize themselves to make such solicitations. Certainly such a position would render this portion of the Privacy Act as virtually meaningless. I am unable to concede, and therefore do not concede, that either of your statements reflecting the proper intent of this law is correct.
You claim that my letter "quite clearly points out that [I am] not entitled to a waiver from the Social Security requirement from the federal government." Your statement confuses me, first in what portion of my letter you feel "clearly points out" that I am not entitled to such waiver, and second, what waiver it is that you feel I am not entitled to. Please note that in my November 6, 1998 letter to the License Bureau, I quite clearly asked to be informed of the nature of the waiver that was demanded of me. Specifically, I asked to know what form the waiver needs to take, what branch, department, agency or office of the federal government must issue the waiver, what federal form the waiver must be printed on, who must sign the waiver, and any other specific features a proper waiver must possess. You have failed to describe this waiver in any manner whatsoever, so I find your reference to "waiver" to be quite ambiguous, and until you provide such information describing this waiver, it is my contention that this waiver does not exist.
In fact, please find enclosed a letter from the Department of Health & Human Services/Social Security Administration, written in response to an inquiry that was made in regards to the waiver described in Title 75, section 1510(f) of Pennsylvania's Consolidated Statutes. I have withheld the identity of the addressee of that letter for privacy reasons. This letter quite clearly shows that the waiver specifically referred to in 1510(f) does not exist. I'm sure you must agree, therefore, that the waiver provision of 1510(f) is null and void, and cannot be required by the commonwealth of Pennsylvania for any purpose whatsoever.
You also apparently believe that there exists a federal requirement to have a social security number, but you have not identified the federal law that creates this requirement. If you believe I am required to have a social security number, the burden falls upon you to provide that law to me. I note that you have thus far failed to do so.
You further made the following statement:
Sir, if you can cite for me a federal or Pennsylvania law that requires me to apply for and have a social security number, fine. But if no such law exists, and no law exists prohibiting the state from issuing a license to persons lacking social security numbers, then this statement qualifies as extortion. I have reviewed the case of Commonwealth vs. Hershey, 669 A2d. 517 (Pa Cmwlth Ct 1996), but find that it does not support your position at all. Please cite the law that supports the statement, or advise PennDOT that they must accept my application for a driver license.
Finally, sir, I remember when I took a course years ago to learn how to safely operate a car. Back then, I thought that having a driver's license meant that I had proven that I knew how to drive safely, and that I understood the rules of the road. Your position, and the apparent position of the commonwealth makes it clear that we have entered a dangerous stage. Your statement above shows that you believe that the only ones that may drive are those "authorized" by the state to do so. Has the commonwealth "authorized" your every travel, "authorized" you to visit relatives and "authorized" you to make trips to the grocery store? Is every movement of a car within the state borders a manifestation of the hand of government "authorization"? Is the state constitutionally and morally within its bounds to bar any class of people it wishes from what is today a common necessity? Sir, I refuse to believe that. But if you believe my kind are not welcome in Pennsylvania, please say so plainly.
I am a safe, experienced, driver. I have as much right to the road as any person with a social security number. Until moving to Pennsylvania, I believed the purpose of the driver's license was to show some reasonable of evidence that one is a safe driver. You are telling me that's not true.
I await your proof to the contrary. Any facts presented herein that are not rebutted within 30 days of your receipt of this letter will be presumed true and correct, and all your challenged statements above that remain unsubstantiated will be null & void. I thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Cornelius J. McIver
Encl: copy, your letter to me, January 8, 1999
Encl: copy, letter from the department of Health & Human Services, February 28, 1995
Cc:
Governor Tom Ridge
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.