Mr. Cornelius J. Mclver
[My address]

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

Dear McIver:

Your letter of February 5th, 1999, addressed to Andrew S. Gordon, Chief Counsel, for the Department of Transportation, has been referred to this office for reply since we handle Driver License matters.

Initially, I should point that your letter to the Department indicated that you went to the York Office of the Department of Transportation in order to obtain a Pennsylvanian Driver's License. In order to obtain a Pennsylvania Driver's License you must complete an application for the same; so it was natural for us to assume that when you applied for a driver's license, the application form containing the information concerning the Social Security Number was in your possession. I fail to see how it could be otherwise. In any event, the placement of this information on the application form which you are required to complete meets the requirements of the Federal Act.

Secondly, you must understand the history of the Privacy Act. As is often the case with its first attempt, Congress painted with too broad a brush. It isn't that the later provisions are inconsistent, it is merely that Congress realized that they didn't want to so restrict the states from getting Social Security information for valid state purposes. So concerning motor vehicles, in some instances they mandated that the states obtain the social security information from the person before licensing them, while in other instances they just provided a blanket provision allowing the states to obtain the Social Security information. In addition, in case there was any question as to whether there was a conflict in the law, they made quite clear that if any other provision the Federal Law was inconsistent with allowing the states to have a Social Security Act those inconsistent provisions must fall.

Mr. Gordon's letter also stated that it was clear from your letter that you are not entitled to a waiver from the Social Security requirement. Your most recent correspondence indicates that your are puzzled by Mr. Gordon's conclusion. I believe that it should be apparent. Your letter to the Department indicates you attempted to obtain a waiver letter from the Federal Government, and were told that there was no waiver. The Legislature, when they passed Section 1510(f) had been informed, as we had been informed by Federal authorities, that there was a waiver. Apparently, this is incorrect and there is no waiver. This renders the language of Section 1510(f) nugatory. Obviously, if there is no waiver you are not entitled to one, and you must supply your Social Security Number. The mere fact that a waiver does not exist doesn't make null and void the requirement that you provide a Social Security Number when you obtain a license.

Finally, perhaps you don't understand the importance of obtaining this information. Your letter indicates that years ago you took a course on how to safely operate a motor vehicle and felt you had proven that you knew how to drive safely. The situation is far more complicated than that. This country came to the realization that driving in dangerous when more people started to die on the highways each year than Americans who died during the entire Vietnam War conflict. Therefore, the states passed tough laws against drunken driving and similar hazardous conduct. But passing the laws was not enough. Dangerous individuals would move from state-to-state, and obtain new driver license credentials. Pennsylvania discovered that a number of people applying for licenses each year were dangerous drivers from other states. There must be one single universal identifier in order to stop the dangerous drivers from one state obtaining licensing in another state. That was the reason Congress passed this law, and that's the reason that Pennsylvania must require individuals to present their Social Security Number in order to become licensed.

In answer to you final questions, the State is constitutionally and morally within its bounds to bar dangerous drivers from its highways. This isn't just any class of people that we are barring from the highways; only the dangerous ones. In order to accomplish this very legitimate task, Pennsylvania is entitled to require positive identification. When dealing with a population of over eight million drivers, there must be one uniform identifier, and that is the Social Security Number. The Federal Congress recognized this when they allowed the states to use the Social Security Number for Licensing purposes. I hope that you will recognize this too.

Sincerely

[signed]

Harold H. Cramer
Assistant Chief Counsel

cc: Andrew S. Gordon, Chief Counsel

My thoughts: This one seems to be sincere. There are a few words omitted causing some grammarical problems in the original, but it's replicated here as I recieved it. I won't hold that against him, since I made a few similar mistakes in prior letters myself. It would be poor form anyway.

Paragragh 3 seems to argue that the Privacy Act is null & void because some other contradictory law overrides it. The only problem with that is the law they cite as giving them authority to ask for the number does not contradict the Privacy Act, rather it fulfills it. I've seen this type of language in correspondence others in my situation here in PA have received from them, and it doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think they're off point.

Paragraph 4 conceeds that there is no waiver, but they argue since there is no waiver, all applicants have to give a SSN. I've considered that angle before, and I addressed it on my recent letter to the Bureau. I'll repeat it my response to this letter.

The last two paragraphs will be the most fun replying too. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find two legal flaws in paragraph 5. See my follow up letter for the answer, which I'll probably have posted here around the end of March, 1999. Email me if you think you know it. I'll tell you if you got it.

In paragraph 6, the second sentence is quite exceptional. I infer from that statement that he believes people without SSNs are dangerous drivers. That will be fun too.

Here is my response.

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.