SCAN THIS NEWS

7/9/98
Included below is the address and letter format information for objecting to the DoT proposed standard driver's license regulation. If implemented as presently written, the Department of Transportation (DoT) regulation will result in a National Identification Document (NID) system in the United States. Once in place, no one will be allowed to travel, open bank accounts, obtain health care, get a job or purchase firearms without first presenting the proper government documents.

Under the Administrative Procedures Act, the public is allowed to submit written objections during the 30 day comment period. Comments must be submitted in writing. The notice of proposed rule making did not recognize other forms of comments such as phone calls or email submissions.
SAMPLE LETTER

After the comment period deadline, the agency must consider all comments and must provide a statement supporting their decision to override public objections.

DEADLINE: Comments must be received by August 3, 1998.

PAGE LIMIT: The page limit is 15 pages, however additional pages of relevant supporting material may be included.

NOTE: The agency requests but does not require that two copies be sent to the Docket Management address provided below.

NOTICE: The NHTSA also mailed copies of the proposed rule to all Highway Safety officials and to the motor vehicle administrators of each State. They too will be submitting comments.

PUBLIC VIEWING: Copies of all documents will be placed in Docket No. NHTSA-98-3945; in Docket Management, Room PL-401, Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590. (Docket hours are Monday-Friday, 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.)

Also provided at the bottom of this page are some suggestions for arguments which may be used in objecting to the proposed rule. These arguments will hopefully stimulate further thought.

Objections do not have to raise legal issues, but they should be concisely written and clearly state the nature of each objection.

[YOUR NAME]

[YOUR ADDRESS

[DATE, 1998]

Docket Management, Room PL-401 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Nassif Building
400 Seventh Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Docket No. NHTSA-98-3945 DOCID:fr17jn98-28
23 CFR Part 1331: Proposed Rule - State-Issued Driver's Licenses and Comparable Identification Documents

Dear Sirs,

In the Federal Register of June 17, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 116, pages 33219 through 33225), your agency proposed certain regulations pursuant to the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, and specifically º656 thereof, 110 Stat. 3009-716, which will be codified in 23 C.F.R. Part 1331; further, comments from the public were invited regarding these proposed regulations. My objections to the proposed rule, and suggestions for modification, are as follows:


[BODY OF LETTER] EXAMPLES OF OBJECTIONS

I wish to be informed of any proposed amendments to these rules or their adoption.


Sincerely,

[YOUR SIGNATURE]
[YOUR NAME]



--------------[CUT HERE]------------------

CONSTITUTIONAL OBJECTIONS:
*First Amendment Religious Objections:
*Fourth Amendment Protection:
*Constitutional Right to Travel.

SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

OTHER LEGAL OBJECTIONS
*Privacy Act Prohibition
*Limited Class of People Who May Acquire Social Security Numbers:
*The Act (P.L. 104-208) Prohibits Establishment of National ID Card:
*The proposed rule will unlawfully impact all domestic American.

Certain religious faiths hold that followers are not to be numbered. This rule will abridge the right of practitioners of these traditional religions in the free exercise thereof.

ARGUMENT:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law which prohibits, impedes, or interferes with the free exercise of religion.

The proposed rule will result in all states mandatorily requiring submission of Social Security numbers as a condition to being issued driver's licenses. Anyone who is opposed to using SSNs for identification purposes due to religious beliefs, will be denied a driver's license. The result will be that practitioners of any faith which includes a teaching against being numbered will be denied the right to drive if they exercise their religious belief.

PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:

The Holy Bible establishes by example the principle that Christians are not to be numbered. King David wanted to "know the number of the People" under his authority (2 Samuel 24:2). And, Satan caused David to number all Israel (1 Chronicles 21:1). God's Word further states that David's command to number Israel "was evil in the sight of God" (1 Chronicles 21:7). Because of the People's acquiescence to the king's enumeration plan, God sent a plague UPON THE PEOPLE (1 Chronicles 21:14).

The Bible warns of a government system which will require everyone to be numbered -- contrary to God's will. Regarding this system the Bible states:

"And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead; "and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, (even) the name of the beast or the number of his name." (Rev. 13:16-17)

But believers are warned not to participate in this numbering system:
"And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a great voice, If any man worshippeth the beast and his image, and receiveth a mark on his forehead, or upon his hand, "he also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

"and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, they that worship the beast and his image, and whoso receiveth the mark of his name." (Rev. 14:9-11).
According to Daniel, this "beast" is a "king," which in our modern-day world is a government system. (Daniel 7:17-23, Rev. 19:19).

CONCLUSION:

The proposed rule must make exceptions for believers who have a sincerely held religious objection to using numbers for universal identification.

The proposed rule will result in individuals being subjected to unreasonable detention, investigation, and questioning, i.e., searches and seizures.

ARGUMENT:

The United States Constitution protects all individuals in the security of their personal papers and effects against all unreasonable searches and seizures; and that no exception shall be made to this prohibition unless a sworn affidavit is presented upon probable cause and then only after a subsequent Warrant has been issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.

PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:

In implementation, under the proposed rule every individual will be subjected to scrutiny of their personal affairs. They will be detained while verification of their social security number is confirmed. The act of demanding proof of a social security number card constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure of a person's papers and effects.

CONCLUSION:

The rule may not impose any condition where information will be mandated or the submission of personal information is required except when done in accordance with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The rule must be changed to preserve this constitutional protection.

o Constitutional Right to Travel.
OBJECTION:

The rule, as presently written, will unlawfully abridge citizens' right to travel.

ARGUMENT:

Americans have a constitutional right to travel the roads of their respective state which is an integral component of any American's pursuit of happiness. This rule will have the effect of state citizens being denied the right to drive on state roads simply for failing to comply with the consequential requirements of a federal regulation. The requirement that all drivers must have SSNs constitutes a new condition precedent to obtaining a driverÆs license, yet possession of a SSN has no bearing upon the ability to drive a car. This requirement thus is an unconstitutional abridgement of every citizen's right to travel.

PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:

Every citizen has a constitutional right to work for a living; see State v. PolakowÆs Realty Experts, Inc., 243 Ala. 441, 10 So.2d 461, 462 (1942). But beyond this constitutional right, they further have the constitutional right to travel which is protected by the United States Constitution; see Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (6 Wall.) 35, 49 (1868)("We are all citizens of the United States, and as members of the same community must have the right to pass and repass through every part of it without interruption, as freely as in our own states"); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125, 78 S.Ct. 1113 (1958)

("The right to travel is a part of the ælibertyÆ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment"); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629, 89 S.Ct. 1322

(1969) ("This Court long ago recognized that the nature of our Federal Union and our constitutional concepts of personal liberty unite to require that all citizens be free to travel throughout the length and breadth of our land uninhibited by statutes, rules, or regulations which unreasonably burden or restrict this movement"); and Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 339, 92 S.Ct. 995 (1972)("[S]ince the right to travel was a constitutionally protected right, æany classification which serves to penalize the exercise of that right, unless shown to be necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest, is unconstitutionalÆ"). See also Schachtman v. Dulles, 225

F.2d 938,941 (D.C.Cir. 1955)("The right to travel, to go from place to place as the means of transportation permit, is a natural right subject to the rights of others and to reasonable regulation under law"); Bergman v. United States, 565 F.Supp. 1353, 1397 (W.D. Mich. 1983)

("The right to travel is a basic, fundamental right under the Constitution, its origins premised upon a variety of constitutional provisions"); and Lee v. China Airlines, Ltd., 669 F.Supp. 979, 982 (C.D.Cal. 1987)("[T]he right to travel interstate is fundamental").

This right to travel is also a constitutional right embodied within the several states' constitutions.

CONCLUSION:

The new rules should be amended so as to eliminate the SSN requirement for driverÆs licenses issued to domestic Americans so as to assure that no domestic American will be denied their right to travel the roads of their state simply for the lack of a SSN.

The rule, in implementation, will violate the fundamental legal principle of dual sovereignty by compelling the states to implement a federal regulatory scheme. The effect of this proposed rule will be the abridgment of citizens' constitutional rights.

ARGUMENT:

Neither Congress nor any federal agency may compel a state or states' officers to implement or enforce a federal regulatory program.

PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:

In implementation, the states will be compelled to comply with these federal guidelines in the issuance of all driver's license documents. Section 1331.6 of the proposed regulation plainly demands that all states must obtain SSNs from "every applicant for a license or document," and further requires that every state confirm the applicant's SSN with the Social Security Administration (SSA). But under the U.S. Constitution, Congress simply does not possess the power to regulate the issuance of driverÆs licenses by the states of this Union; nor may Congress dictate to the states how to issue driverÆs licenses.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government may not, neither through Congressional Acts nor Administrative Policy, conscript the states nor their officers to implement a federal regulatory scheme. In the case of New York v. United States the Court ruled:

"If a federal interest is sufficiently strong to cause Congress to legislate, it must do so directly; it may not conscript state government as its agents."

And in the case of Printz v. U.S. the Court ruled:
"The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty."

CONCLUSION:

The rule must be rewritten so as not to compel the states to act in furtherance of the federally proposed regulatory SSN collecting scheme; or to compel the states to standardize their state issued licenses to conform to federal guidelines.

In implementation, the proposed rule will result in violations of the Privacy Act of 1974.

ARGUMENT:

The Privacy Act prohibits any federal, state, or local agency from denying any individual a benefit, right, or privilege due to the individual's refusal to divulge a social security number UNLESS the submission is REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW. There IS NO federal law which requires any state licensing agency to obtain social security numbers from license applicants; furthermore, if there were such a federal law imposing any such requirement upon a state licensing agency, the law would be fundamentally unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court's New York and Printz rulings.

PREMISE:

The privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579) Section 7 states:

(a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.
(2) the (The) provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to - "(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or "(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."

Congress has no authority to compel a state agency to obtain social security numbers -- except with regard to state administered, federally funded welfare programs. However, Congress does have the right to LIMIT the uses that may be made of the federally assigned numbers; which is what the Privacy Act does.

In practice, the effect of the proposed rule will be that state driver's licensing agencies will deny driver licenses to individuals who do not supply a social security number. This practice will violate the clear intent of the Privacy Act.

The Social Security Act provides penalties for anyone who compels the disclosure of an individual's social security number in violation of federal law. Title 42 U.S. Code, section 408(a)(8) states:

"[Whoever] discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both."

The Privacy Act prohibits any state agency from compelling an individual to disclose their social security number unless the disclosure is required by federal law. There is no federal law which does (or lawfully could) require a state agency to compel the disclosure of a driver license applicant's social security number. The effectual result of the proposed rule will be that driver's license applicants will be denied a benefit, right, or privilege for refusing to supply a social security number. This practice will violate Title 42 U.S.C., 408(a)(8). Such violations will likely result in a multitude of lawsuits and possibly even criminal prosecutions against state officials.

CONCLUSION:

The rule must be rewritten so as to clearly reaffirm that a state agency may not deny to any individual any benefit, right, or privilege due to the individual's refusal to obtain, or provide to the agency, a federally assigned social security number; and to reaffirm that state agencies must comply with the Privacy Act any time a social security number is requested.

The proposed rule will effectively limit driving to the limited classes of individuals who may be assigned social security numbers.

ARGUMENT:

There is no compelling police power interest in limiting the right to drive to only the limited classes of individuals that may be assigned social security numbers.

PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:

The Social Security Act, codified at Title 42 U.S. Code, Section 405(c), sets out the limited class of individuals to whom the Commissioner of Social Security may assign numbers. The classes are: 1) aliens, 2) applicants for social benefits, and 3) children of the members of either of these two classes at the request of the parents or at the time they enter school. According to well established legal principles, the Commissioner is not authorized to (and therefore he may not) assign numbers to any individual who falls outside one of the classes set out at section 405(c).

NOTE: If there are any other classes of Americans who may be assigned Social Security numbers, please so advise me and please provide the statutory authority.

At the federal level, a principle of law holds that in order for a federal employee to perform any given act, he must be authorized by statute to do so. This principle is shown by a wealth of cases, (See United States v. Spain, 825 F.2d 1426 (10th Cir. 1987); United States v. Pees, 645 F. Supp. 697 (D. Col. 1986); United States v. Hovey, 674 F. Supp. 161 (D. Del. 1987); United States v. Emerson, 846 F. 2d 541 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. McLaughlin, 851 F. 2d 283 (9th Cir. 1988); United States v. Widdowson, 916 F.2d 587, 589 (10th Cir. 1990).

The only federal law which authorizes the assignment of SSNs to anyone is found in the above quoted passage of 42 U.S.C., º405, and these classes do not include all the citizens of each state who are otherwise qualified to drive.

The rule presently makes a special exception for aliens lawfully admitted to the United States who may not be issued Social Security cards. However, the rule does not presently make any similar exceptions for domestic Americans who cannot be, or have not been, or do not choose to be, assigned Social Security cards or numbers.

Since some domestic Americans (who are otherwise qualified to drive) have NOT been, may NOT be, or do not choose to be, assigned Social Security numbers, the resultant effect of the rule, as presently written, will be that the right to drive will only be recognized for the limited class of individuals who are authorized to be assigned a Social Security number and have subsequently been assigned such number.

In a recent letter from the Social Security Administration, signed by Mr. Charles H. Mullen, Associate Commissioner, the Agency states:
"The Social Security Act does not require a person to have a Social Security number (SSN) to live and work in the United States, nor does it require an SSN simply for the purpose of having one."

CONCLUSION:

The proposed rule must make exceptions for citizens who have NOT been (or may NOT be) assigned Social Security numbers but are otherwise qualified to drive and be issued a driver's license.

OBJECTION:

The proposed rule violates the very Act it purports to implement.

ARGUMENT AND PREMISE:

The Act, at Section 404(h)(2), states that provisions contained within the Act shall not be used as an excuse for the establishment of a national identification card. However, the proposed rule will result in the establishment of a national identification card, i.e., standardized state issued driver's license cards using Social Security numbers as a universal identifier will become nationally standardized and universally recognized identification documents.

CONCLUSION:

The proposed rule must be changed so that it will not result in the establishment of a national identification card.


o Social Security Numbers Are Not to be Used for Identification:

OBJECTION:

The rule will establish a national identification system in the United States using social security numbers as the universal identifier in clear violation of historically established public policy.

ARGUMENT AND PREMISE:

The official U. S. government policy has always consistently been that it is not desirable to establish any form of national identification document in the U.S., and that social security numbers are not to be used for universal identification purposes. For example:

- In 1971, a Social Security Administration task force issued a report which stated that the Social Security Administration should do nothing to promote the use of the social security number as an identifier.

- In 1973, a report of the HEW Secretary's "Advisory Committee on Automated Personal Data System" concluded that the adoption of a universal identifier by this country was not desirable; it also found that the social security number was not suitable for such a purpose as it does not meet the criteria of a universal identifier that distinguishes a person from all others.

- In 1974, Congress enacted the Privacy Act (P.L. 93-579) to limit governmental use of the social security number. It provided that no State or local government agency may withhold a benefit from a person simply because the individual refuses to furnish his or her social security number.

- Also in 1974, the U. S. Attorney General established the "Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification" (FACFI) to study the cost to society of false ID crimes and to formulate potential solutions for reducing the number of these crimes. The Committee concluded in its report that "[a] federally-controlled national identification system is undesirable."

- In 1976, the Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification (FACFI) recommended that penalties for misuse of social security numbers should be increased, and again it rejected the idea of using social security numbers as a national identifier.

- In 1977, the Carter Administration proposed that the Social Security card be one of the authorized documents an employer could use to assure that a job applicant could work in this country, but they also stated that the social security number card should not become a national identity document.

- In 1979, the Social Security Administration published an official "Policy Statement" regarding social security numbers, ((PPD-23), SSR 79-18: SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS). In it, the Administration stated that the agency should "avoid unilateral policies that would push the SSN toward a universal identifier status." Final regulations covering this policy were published in the Federal Register on February 20, 1979, at 44 FR 10369.

- In 1981, the Reagan Administration stated that it "is explicitly opposed to the creation of a national identity card" with regard to changes proposed to social security number cards; even though it recognized the need for a means for employers to comply with the employer sanctions provisions of its immigration reform legislation.

- In 1993, President Bill Clinton proposed a universal Health Insurance identification card which used the social security number for identification. He even appeared on television showing a sample version of the ID card. It was later learned that the executive-level plan to establish a national ID had been devised during "secret meetings" held by the PresidentÆs wife, Hillary Clinton. However, Congress and the public both rejected the national identification document scheme.

- In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform Act which authorized the use of social security numbers for verifying employment eligibility of aliens. Section 404 of the Act stated that nothing in the Act was to be construed to authorize, directly or indirectly, the issuance or use of national identification cards.

- And currently, the Social Security Agency offers a publication entitled "Social Security - Your Number" in which it states that a person should not use their social security card or number for identification.

(All of the above information was taken from U. S. government documents including material published by the Social Security Administration.

See also the Social Security Administration's own Internet home page regarding the history of SSNs at: http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssnchron.html)

CONCLUSION:

The rule must be rewritten so as not to violate public policy by implementing a national identification system.

o The proposed rule will unlawfully impact all domestic American.

OBJECTION:

The rule will result in all citizens being subjected to the rule's identification verification requirements; however, the Act was only intended to apply to illegal immigrants. Domestic Americans should not be subjected to the rule's identification requirements.

ARGUMENT:

The Act was not written to regulate domestic Americans, only illegal aliens.

PREMISE FOR OBJECTION:

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208 (the law which the subject rule purports to implement) was enacted to address the problem of illegal immigration by identifying illegal immigrants. The Act does not contemplate subjecting "all" individuals to any type of proof of citizenship -- which will be the resultant effect if the rule is implemented as presently written. The rule will regulate the whole population of the country instead of the very small category of individuals for which the Act was intended.

CONCLUSION: There is no statutory or constitutional authority for subjecting citizens to the legal immigration verification requirements set out under the proposed rule.

-------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING SUBMISSION OF COMMENTS CONTACT:

Mr. William Holden, Chief, Driver Register and Traffic Records Division, (202) 366-4800

Reply to: <fingerprint@networkusa.org>

=======================================================================

To subscribe to the free Scan This News newsletter, send a message to <majordomo@efga.org> and type "subscribe scan" in the BODY. Or, to be removed type "unsubscribe scan" in the message BODY.

For additional instructions see www.efga.org/about/maillist.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scan This News" is Sponsored by S.C.A.N. Host of the "FIGHT THE FINGERPRINT!" web page:

www.networkusa.org/fingerprint.shtml

=======================================================================

RETURN TO LIBERTY ACTIVISTS HOME PAGE