ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/08/84)
I have seen several articles recently saying things to the effect that a national driver's license would be a good idea. Before we start debating this issue, though, could someone be good enough to tell me where in the Constitution is it that Congress is authorized to regulate the use of motor vehicles? After all, the Constitution states that any powers that it does not explicitly give to Congress belong to the states. Thus, if the Constutition does not mention motor vehicles, it seems to me that establishment of a national driver's license would require a Constitutional amendment.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (05/08/84)
[] In regards to the Constitution and a national drivers license. It could be argued that since many vehicles use the Interstate highway system, paid partially with Federal Funds, the Congress could impose a license needed to drive on those highways. This matter could be stretched to fit the Interstate commerce portion of the Constitution where the Federal Government is given the charge to regulate such commerce. This same idea is being given serious consideration in the mandating of a Federal Salt Water Fishing License, before Congress now. If this application of the Constitution flies, you can see an attempt to impose a Federal Drivers License. It has a good twenty years or more to go though. I have both good and bad feelings about Federal Licensing. I am going to wait and see what is proposed before taking a stand. I am still not sure about a Salt Water Fishing License. There are both good and bad points in its present form. T. C. Wheeler
ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/08/84)
Perhaps someone can confirm this... I once heard that Belgium does not have government-issued driver's licenses at all. The only requirement is that in order to drive, you must carry some minimum amount of insurance. The obvious consequence of this is that the insurance companies do all the driver screening. I'll bet they do a better job than the government ever could.
jgpo@iwu1c.UUCP (John, KA9MNK) (05/08/84)
> After all, the Constitution states that any powers that > it does not explicitly give to Congress belong to the states. > > Thus, if the Constutition does not mention motor vehicles, it > seems to me that establishment of a national driver's license > would require a Constitutional amendment. I don't know about that. There must be a mechanism whereby the Feds can get control of things not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution; things that the drafters of the document could never have anticipated, such as airplanes and amateur radio. Both my pilot's and ham licenses were issued by Federal agencies. When you stop to think about it, that's the only way these particular activities can reasonably be regulated. Maybe it's allowed because the regulations are promulgated and enforced by various agencies, commissions, and administrations, rather than Congress per se. Also, the various rules and regulations, at least as far as aviation and ham radio are concerned, are just that: rules and regulations; they are NOT laws. Granted, we are bound to adhere to those rules and can be punished if we don't, but a violation of a rule results in an administrative hearing, NOT a trial in a court of law. Perhaps, if we do end up with a Federal driver's license, the various laws would have to be replaced by rules and regulations. Then, since the LAW is no longer involved, it would automagically become constitutional. "The change should be transparent to the user." (Famous Last Words #3) Anybody out there well-versed in Constitutional law? John Opalko
ark@rabbit.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (05/09/84)
>> After all, the Constitution states that any powers that >> it does not explicitly give to Congress belong to the states. >> >> Thus, if the Constutition does not mention motor vehicles, it >> seems to me that establishment of a national driver's license >> would require a Constitutional amendment. > > > I don't know about that. There must be a mechanism whereby the Feds can > get control of things not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution; things > that the drafters of the document could never have anticipated, such as > airplanes and amateur radio. Both my pilot's and ham licenses were issued > by Federal agencies. When you stop to think about it, that's the only way > these particular activities can reasonably be regulated. Maybe it's allowed > because the regulations are promulgated and enforced by various agencies, > commissions, and administrations, rather than Congress per se. Also, the > various rules and regulations, at least as far as aviation and ham radio > are concerned, are just that: rules and regulations; they are NOT laws. > Granted, we are bound to adhere to those rules and can be punished if we > don't, but a violation of a rule results in an administrative hearing, NOT > a trial in a court of law. > > Perhaps, if we do end up with a Federal driver's license, the various > laws would have to be replaced by rules and regulations. Then, since the > LAW is no longer involved, it would automagically become constitutional. > "The change should be transparent to the user." (Famous Last Words #3) > > Anybody out there well-versed in Constitutional law? > > > > John Opalko I believe that the Feds justify regulating airwaves and aircraft because they are intrinsically so far-reaching that they automatically influence interstate commerce, which the constitution allows Congress to regulate. In any event, I invite you to imagine what would happen if the Feds did impose something like John Opalko is describing. Everything that I am about to describe has happened to someone, except that it involved airplanes, not automobiles. You get home one day and get the mail. In it is a card asking you to go to the post office and pick up a registered letter. When you get the letter, you discover it is from the Federal Motor Vehicle Administration. The gist of the letter is this: You are accused of having exceeded the speed limit on Route 22, in the eastbound lane, near mile marker 57, about two months ago. The letter contains the exact time and date, but you drive that way every day and there is no way you can remember what you were doing that particular day, or even if you were there, as you sometimes allow other people to drive your car. If you do not wish to contest the accusation, you can send your license into the FMVA within the next 30 days. They will keep it for 90 days and then return it to you. If you do intend to contest the accusation, you can write a letter giving the details of your side of the story and requesting a hearing. You will not be told exactly what evidence they have against you until the hearing, but anything you say in your letter may be used as evidence against you. If you do request a hearing, you will not be allowed to be represented by legal counsel at the hearing. You can bring a lawyer with you if you like, but the lawyer must wait outside during the actual hearing. With the permission of the FMVA, your lawyer can come in to the hearing room briefly to answer questions that you ask, but anything the lawyer tells you will be heard by the FMVA and can be used as evidence against you. In fact, if you have a lawyer at all, it is evidence that you think the defense is going to be difficult, and therefore you must be guilty. If you are found guilty in the hearing, the penalties will be more severe than if you capitulated immediately. Since this hearing is not a trial, and this is not a court, there is no judge or jury. Instead, the people who will decide your case are the same ones that are accusing you. Furthermore, you are presumed to be guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent to the satisfaction of your accusers. Failure to answer any question is presumed evidence of guilt. I am not exaggerating.
shanks@teneron.UUCP (05/09/84)
<-bug food It seems likely that, if Congress were ever to want to institute a national driver's license, they would get their constitutional powers from the Interstate Commerce Clause. After all, the feds regulate duck hunting under it, why not pedestrian hunting? :-) -- Dave Shanks ..!tektronix!ogcvax!metheus!teneron!shanks Teneron Corp. 6700 SW 105th Suite 200 Beaverton, OR 97005 (503) 646-1599
barryg@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Barry Gold) (05/10/84)
Once upon a time Belgium did not have any drivers license requirement.
(And as far as I know, they didn't have any insurance requirement either--
at least none more than California does--that is, if you got into an
accident you were responsible.)
In the early 70s, Belgium finally enacted a drivers license law--with a
grandfather's clause such that anyone who could prove hesh had ever driven
a car in Belgium before the law was enacted would never need to meet any
standards in order to have a lifetime drivers license
When we were in Belgium, we found the general level of driving to be
loathsome. (Of course, it doesn't help that Brussels sidewalks are not
terribly distinct from the streets: they're differently patterned sets
of cobblestones which slope slightly upward.) People parked in the streets
and pased one another in the parking lane. No one seemed to be concerned
for pedestrians. That was only a year or so after the minimal drivers
license law was enacted, though. Things may have improved since then.
Note that these observations are somewhat against my prejudices.
I would far prefer to be able to say that government coercion in such areas
was unnecessary.
--Lee Gold
--
Barry Gold/Lee Gold
usenet: {decvax!allegra|ihnp4}!sdcrdcf!ucla-s!lcc!barry
Arpanet: barry@BNLron@brl-vgr.UUCP (05/11/84)
I don't see the constitution saying anything about airplanes either, nor do I see any constitutional ammendments regarding them. I think it's called interstate commerce. -Ron