Thread: Driver's License Bill Draws Testimony

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pb ... /702230329 -
OREGON LEGISLATURE

Driver's license bill draws testimony from many

Opponents say the plan isn't necessary to fight terrorism

THELMA GUERRERO
Statesman Journal

February 23, 2007

A bill that would require all people seeking driver's licenses to prove citizenship or legal status drew passionate testimony Thursday from those who saw the plan as either an infringement of rights or necessary to prevent terrorism and crime.

So many people, including families, children, farmworkers and professionals, attended the hearing on Senate Bill 424 that the spill-over crowd had to be moved to an adjoining room at the Capitol. More than 30 people signed up to testify.

The Senate Business, Transportation and Workforce Development Committee took no action on the bill.

Supporters say it is needed to help fight terrorism, the methamphetamine problem, and prevent illegal immigrants from getting Oregon driver's licenses.

"In fact, the major (goal) of people who sell methamphetamine is having the Oregon driver's license," said Jim Ludwick, the president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform, who testified at the hearing. "It gives them a pass to go up and down I-5 and distribute methamphetamine."

Opponents say the proposal would infringe on civil liberties, increase the state's cost of issuing driver's licenses and add to the number of uninsured drivers on Oregon's roads.

"Thousands of farmworkers and other undocumented immigrants won't be able to drive to work legally," said Aeryca Steinbauer, the coordinator for CAUSA, an immigrant-rights advocacy group.

The bill would amend the Oregon vehicle code to bring the state into compliance with federal law known as the Real ID Act.

The act, based on recommendations from the 9/11 commission, sets a national standard for verifying the identity of license applicants and requires states to link their record-keeping systems to national databases. It would apply to all people seeking new driver's licenses or renewals.

Congress has appropriated only $40 million to help states implement the federal rule, and cost was an issue at Thursday's hearing. State motor vehicles staff said it was not yet known what it would cost Oregon.

But according to a study by the National Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, implementation could cost states as much as $11 billion.

Still, without adequate money and guidelines from the federal government, state driver's license security is at a stand still, said Loran Youngs, an administrator with Oregon's Driver and Motor Vehicles Services Division.

"Therefore, we ask for the greatest flexibility possible to implement the Real ID Act," Youngs told the committee.

Attempts to repeal the Real ID Act at the Congressional level are gaining momentum.

In Oregon, the American Civil Liberties Union has joined a multi-state effort opposing implementation of the federal act and bills such as SB424 based on cost, civil liberties and ID theft concerns.

CC: Hey, thanks for finding/posting this one.
I got an email from our local OFIR people that outlined their progress on this State-level bill.

FYI for anyone interested... Because it was sponsored by a Democrat (who control majority) and our Governor (also a Democrat) have publicly given support to the bill, it's chances so far at least, appear hopeful. ...See what happens...

"Thousands of farmworkers and other undocumented immigrants won't be able to drive to work legally,"

Just think about that sentence for a minute!

How can anybody say that a driver's license is a "civil liberty." Driving is a privilege NOT a right! Anywhere that a WRONG is about to be perpetrated, the ACLU is right there aiding and abetting. If a driver's license is a "civil liberty", then maybe 12 year olds should get them or blind people.

How can they say they are driving legally and what about car insurance?!

Originally Posted by gofer

"Thousands of farmworkers and other undocumented immigrants won't be able to drive to work legally,"

Just think about that sentence for a minute!

How can anybody say that a driver's license is a "civil liberty." Driving is a privilege NOT a right! Anywhere that a WRONG is about to be perpetrated, the ACLU is right there aiding and abetting. If a driver's license is a "civil liberty", then maybe 12 year olds should get them or blind people.

Being a stickler for legal precision, there are a couple of issues with your comment.

Working backwards, a "civil liberty" is a privilege, not a right. Civil liberties do not arise under the natural law as do the natural rights that are the subject of our protections in the Bill of Rights, but are contradistinct as grants under the system of Roman Civil Law. It is generally a mistake to confuse civil liberties and natural rights.

As for "driving" being a privilege, that depends on whether you are referring to the colloquial usage of the term or the specific statutory meaning of the term. In the transportation statutes of every state, though the specific verbiage may vary, "driving" is defined as the operation of a motor vehicle. A "vehicle" is defined as "a device that can be used to transport or draw persons or property on a highway." "Transportation" is defined as the movement of persons or goods for hire.

Did you get that? So while you or I may generically use the term "drive" to describe the private operation of our automobiles exclusively for personal travel, the statutes deceptively define is as a commercial endeavor, thereby making it a regulable privilege.

If you doubt whether this interpretation is correct, note these decisions relating to the RIGHT to travel in one's own motorcar:

"The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under the "RIGHT" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." (Emphasis added) See: Thompson v. Smith, supra.

"[F]or while a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion ...." (Emphasis added). See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S.

"The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." (Emphasis added) See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

Note that in these decisions the term "transportation" is being used in its general sense, not in the specific statutory sense. At any rate, it is clear that the courts have held the use of one's automobile for the purpose of personal travel to be a right, and no right guaranteed by the federal Constitution may be subjected to a fee or charge by a state (see: Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105).

. At any rate, it is clear that the courts have held the use of one's automobile for the purpose of personal travel to be a right, and no right guaranteed by the federal Constitution may be subjected to a fee or charge by a state

Why do I have to have tags and license for my personal travel? Or pay tolls on roads? Is it constitutional?

Originally Posted by gofer

. At any rate, it is clear that the courts have held the use of one's automobile for the purpose of personal travel to be a right, and no right guaranteed by the federal Constitution may be subjected to a fee or charge by a state

Why do I have to have tags and license for my personal travel? Or pay tolls on roads? Is it constitutional?

Because you were duped into surrendering your title to the state. when you "title" your car, you cede the actual equitable title (usually the manufacturer's certificate of origin) to the state, register is as a commercial vehicle, and then obtain in exchange a "certificate of title." A certificate of title is not a title. It is a legal instrument that expresses the status of a title and information including holder of equitable title and holder of legal title. You as the "purchaser" are listed as legal title holder. The document is in the name of the equitable title holder (the state), and any lien holders are also named in the appropriate place.