license to drive vs 'drivers license'

[Farmer Giles]

Driving is a Free Privilege

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

Greetings ALL

there is a lot of debate between "right to travel" and "license required". I think they're both mistaken and off-base, and here's the proof:

It is settled that the State can regulate the use of public highways. So much for the right to travel.

On the other hand, every vehicle code around the world admits nonresident drivers. without discrimination.

and every person in the same class enjoys the same protection. so there is only one class of "nonresident", with one standard for driving admission.

The only thing checked by the police when stopping a driver is the record. If nothing comes up we're free to go. Nonresidents by definition dont have a drivers license issued in the local state and are still free to go. If I have a local DL I must be a resident, theres really no other way.

Nothing else was checked! So its not a question of "wondering", does this driver have a license from some other state or country.

ok, the compact and reciprocal agreements between most States allow for "checking". But not the rest of the world. I present a Bulgaria DL and all that can do is be valid photo ID. theres nothing else to check.

So the point is the "nonresident privilege" is very general, its only based on qualification to operate. The VC in every state defines it the same way:

the "license to drive" is the privilege of ANY PERSON to operate a motor vehicle whether or not an actual license or permit has been issued

yes the State can regulate driving and yes we have the right to travel at the same time. Anyone can come to the USA and drive around without reference to any foreign privilege. This only makes sense since the local State in any case is SOVEREIGN and retains jurisdiction over the use of its roads.

No foreign state can license any conduct whatsoever in another state. That would defy the concept of the local sovereignty. So whatever we do, legal, illegal, lawful, unlawful, its happening under the laws of "this state".

Therefore nonresidents drive by admission of the local state. It doesn't depend on any foreign law. and the local state admits all drivers of any description when they are over 18, qualified, and have valid photo ID. there is no other qualification to "nonresident"

apparently "nonresident" really means, "nonlicensed". So yes the State is regulating a privilege to drive and admits nonlicensed drivers.

the answer to the nonresident question, "well where then are you resident" is that everyone is resident in the local state. they are either "licensed required" (an actual resident), or "nonresident". What state am I resident? I'm nonresident in Illinois. Thats where I live. Its a flag law, a maritime concept of residence, not a land based issue like voting rights or jury service.

This is how the government applies a transportation law to private uses. Everyone without exception must have a local issue drivers license to operate a motor vehicle... except for nonresidents in private use.

it might help to understand that the use of these words here, in the VC, "resident", and "nonresident", are modifiers like adverbs and adjectives, and not nouns.

(the nonresident privilege doesn't generally extend to for-hire or public service, and sometimes not even to heavier classes like trucks).

So where does that leave the local noncommercial license? Its a voluntary model, many want or need one for whatever purpose, like working. But otherwise we hold the free privilege of operating a motor vehicle in private use.

Which means many many charges of "driving w/o license" are patent fraud. an actual license is only absolutely required for commercial activity.

SO...

the "nonresident privilege" means "nonlicensee privilege"

AND

that many many charges of "driving w/o license" are patent fraud. an actual license is only absolutely required for commercial activity.

AND

driving is indeed a privilege, and travel is indeed a right, and the apparent conflict between the two is resolved.

AND

we presumably hold the free privilege of operating a motor vehicle in private use. its one of the 'privileges' referred to in " all rights privileges and immunities".

AND

we don't need a 'drivers license', we already have a 'license to drive' (for noncommercial)

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

[Pottapaug1938]

I believe that an International Driver's License is not a stand-alone document; rather, it is intended to be used in connection with one's regular license.

[Farmer Giles]

A state requiring a "driver's license" in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roads in no way impinges upon a person's right to travel. You can still walk, take a bus, boat, helicopter, airplane, or bum a ride of somebody.

i think i made that point clearly in the beginning of the post. maybe you are used to these "sovereign patriot" arguments, but thats not my intent.

A foreigner visiting here, I believe can operate a motor vehicle with an international driver's license, which is different than a generic driver's license issued solely by their country or place of residence. If a driver is pulled over with a valid international driver's license, it gets run like any other I believe, and the driver can be ticketed or hauled off to jail (barring diplomatic immunity).

yes, thats my point. an IDP is just a valid photo ID. So far, 2 agreements.

Also, a driver's license can be referred to as a license to drive, or an operator's license, or a license to operate a motor vehicle. As a license it comes up for perioding renewal, at which time a fee and/or a test may be required. Obtaining and keeping the license, like all licenses is a privilege granted by yhe state to ensure a certain minimum standard for being allowed the privilege of using the state's roads.

I agree here as well...where are all these "daisy petals"?

however while a "license to drive" certainly includes the local DL, the VC says it also includes the "nonresident privilege", and the "privilege of ANY person to operate..." which obviously dont have any of the above posted conditions. If there is a debate here its: what are the conditions to enjoy the nonresident benefit of exception?

We are fortunate in the USA in that a valid license in one state allows you to operate a vehicle in another state.

and a valid license from any other country as well. the VC in Illinois describes this as "the class of motor vehicle for which the nonresident is licensed or qualified". LICENSED OR QUALIFIED. thats very telling!

Most countries dont actually issue anything like a DL. California VC specifically contains a nonresident provision for "drivers from countries where no actual license is required or issued"... and if you check the 1949 Geneva international convention on road traffic, Art 24, "drivers" sec 2 youll see that the same provision is contemplated there as well.

That's two, others will point out more logic flaws

i dont think we have any disagreement so far ... the basic point here could be phrased: what qualifies as a nonresident exception? what police power is needed in my case, that makes me different than someone with a "driver license" from Upper Pradesh, or Azerbaijan?

[Farmer Giles]

I believe that an International Driver's License is not a stand-alone document; rather, it is intended to be used in connection with one's regular license.

exactly, its just a helpful translation of the most basic facts on an unverifiable private issue format. whats 'certified' about it is the efficacy in translating the facts shown, that "nombre" means "name", etc. i happen to speak read and write english so i dont need one any valid photo id will do, like my passport. or i could make an ID on the spot with the help of the police officer, there are already verification procedures in every VC to identify a driver.

the problem is too many imagine there is some "extra special quality" to "seeing" a fancy looking card with neat bordering and colors, as though this was of any interest to the local state or a requirement to operate a motor vehicle. the police seem to think they are "looking at your license" when they stare at a plastic card.

[Arthur Rubin]

Most countries dont actually issue anything like a DL.

Most countries have a citizenship or residency card which indicates whether you are licensed to drive. Not anything like a DL, but still has the same effect as an attachment to the IDL.

[Nikki]

The American Automobile Association is one of two authorized issuers of International Driving Permits within the United States.

From the cited web page:

Issuance of Permit is restricted to persons EIGHTEEN YEARS or over who hold a valid U.S.A. or Territorial License.

...

NOTE: IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOUR U.S.A. OR TERRITORIAL LICENSE BE CARRIED WITH THE PERMIT AT ALL TIMES.
The International or Inter-American Permit is not valid for driving in the United States.

...

I CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT, AND THAT THE LICENSE INDICATED HAS NOT BEEN SUSPENDED NOR REVOKED.
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT A VALID STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE MUST ACCOMPANY THIS PERMIT, AND THAT THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY AS LONG AS
THE STATE LICENSE IS VALID, BUT NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED.

An International Driving Permit (IDP) allows an individual to drive a private motor vehicle in another nation when accompanied by a valid license from their home country.

The document is slightly larger than a standard passport and is essentially a multiple language translation of one's own existing driver's license, complete with photograph and vital statistics.

It is not a license to operate a motor vehicle on its own.

Irrespective of the uninformed arguments of many I-refuse-to-contract-with-the-state-via-a drivers-license sovereignoramuses or of the various Internet sites which sell what they allege are valid IDPs, the IDP is NEVER valid in the country in which it is issued, must ALWAYS be accompanied by a valid drivers license -- or clearly explain why the issuing country does not provide one.

[Farmer Giles]

Most countries dont actually issue anything like a DL.

Most countries have a citizenship or residency card which indicates whether you are licensed to drive. Not anything like a DL, but still has the same effect as an attachment to the IDL.

the license to drive in most countries is "on the back of the car, man".

seriously, so whats the point of the foreign DL, or an IDP, other than valid photo ID? Its not a grant from one jurisdiction to do something in another jurisdiction, its literally an ID card so the police can easily run the drivers info through THEIR database. What comes up when the police run my Vietnamese DL? other than information already in their own system? I present this item, nothing comes up against me, and im free to go because the LEO "thinks" im licensed in Vietnam? How could that possibly interest him? It might show that im qualified to operate that vehicle class but if there was any doubt, which there rarely is, test me on the sideof the road. In fact PA VC has just such a provision, that "drivers coming from outside the USA or Canada may be required to demonstrate knowledge of traffic signals and the rules of the road".

if they think im drunk, i get tested. if they think ihave a medical issue, they can summarily seize the license, whether resident or nonresident. if they think im incompetent, shouldnt some standard test apply? it certainly cannot come down to "wondering" about some foreign overseas administration. Who cares what Zambia says? This is Illinois!

[Farmer Giles]

It is not a license to operate a motor vehicle on its own.

Irrespective .. of the various Internet sites which sell what they allege are valid IDPs, the IDP is NEVER valid in the country in which it is issued, must ALWAYS be accompanied by a valid drivers license -- or clearly explain why the issuing country does not provide one.

I dont think there is any standard codified provision out there for "clearly explaining why". LEO's are not school teachers demanding explanations and they cant make judgements. he or she has a specific defined job to perform and isnt meant to be hearing arguments on the side of the road. I cant "explain" my way into a license any more than I could explain my way OUT of a license, I am either duly entitled or not. My legal status shouldnt depend on how articulate I am or whether someone has an opinion.


the point here is that there are ONLY 2 classes of driver

resident

nonresident

there is no 3rd or 4th or 5th option like

"which ones and explain me why on the side of the road in 15 minutes or less"
or "give me a geography lesson"
or" let me be emotionally stimulated by hearing some exotic foreign name"

i just dont think it works that way legally. and is any higher court really going to rule it that way? there is no such thing as an "issuing country", other than....THIS STATE! which is the point from the original post, the only issue in question is am I legal here, and how.

so its one or the other, 2 options only. and every person of the same class is equally qualified under the same conditions, which is simply "due process" and "equal protection"

so in fact those internet IDP's are as valid as any other private issue ID which the Supreme Court has already ruled to be sufficient. The IDP treaty itself lays out a very simple standard format.


The IDP is not valid in the "country of issue" because it presumes that if it is meant to translate an actual DL it wont do as a substitution. Otherwise there is no concept of "country of issue" it doest matter where i get my valid photo ID

[Arthur Rubin]

the license to drive in most countries is "on the back of the car, man".

Nonsense. Most countries have more restrictive licensing and registration requirements than the US. As for whether your Vietnamese license is valid, the local police probably won't check; but, if you're arrested for something else, and the license isn't valid, you are subject to prosecution for perjury, and your license will be seized.

[Farmer Giles]

the license to drive in most countries is "on the back of the car, man".

Nonsense. Most countries have more restrictive licensing and registration requirements than the US. As for whether your Vietnamese license is valid, the local police probably won't check; but, if you're arrested for something else, and the license isn't valid, you are subject to prosecution for perjury, and your license will be seized.

perjury? are we talking about false testimony, under oath? so if Im arrested for shoplifting and I have an expired license from Vietnam Im accused of perjury?

the local police will not check because they cant.

all reports and personal experience are to the contrary... try finding out the vehicle code for upper volta.

the question remains: what police power interest does any jurisdiction really have over nonresidents when they already, routinely allow drivers from anywhere in the world to operate without any prior approval, fee, id, qualification test etc? im just pointing out how things already are... "nonresident" effectivly means "not actually licensed" and yet there is a "nonresident exception" in every country and state around the world,by codified local law, by international treaty, and by the very obvious custom of allowing any qualified driver to operate a noncommercial vehicle.

[bmielke]

the license to drive in most countries is "on the back of the car, man".

Nonsense. Most countries have more restrictive licensing and registration requirements than the US. As for whether your Vietnamese license is valid, the local police probably won't check; but, if you're arrested for something else, and the license isn't valid, you are subject to prosecution for perjury, and your license will be seized.

perjury?

Perjury = Lying under oath.

When you are signing a ticket (the last one I actually saw anyway) your signature is under oath.

[Arthur Rubin]

the license to drive in most countries is "on the back of the car, man".

Nonsense. Most countries have more restrictive licensing and registration requirements than the US. As for whether your Vietnamese license is valid, the local police probably won't check; but, if you're arrested for something else, and the license isn't valid, you are subject to prosecution for perjury, and your license will be seized.

perjury?

The attachment to the IDL making it valid in the US says that you affirm that the foreign license is valid, under penalty of perjury.

[bmielke]

The attachment to the IDL making it valid in the US says that you affirm that the foreign license is valid, under penalty of perjury.

Or that too, I missed that part.

[Pottapaug1938]

Farmer Giles on Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:03 pm

Nikki wrote:

It is not a license to operate a motor vehicle on its own.

Irrespective .. of the various Internet sites which sell what they allege are valid IDPs, the IDP is NEVER valid in the country in which it is issued, must ALWAYS be accompanied by a valid drivers license -- or clearly explain why the issuing country does not provide one.

I dont think there is any standard codified provision out there for "clearly explaining why".

Whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant. Your premise is like those of the Tax denier idiots who while that there is no law making anyone liable to pay income tax. Certain concepts in the law are not codified because they are susceptible of "plain meaning" -- in other words, I don't need to have a codified standard for "clearly explaining why" in order to have some reasonable idea of what a clear explanation is.

[Farmer Giles]

sorry i was still editing my post so i jumped the loop, so to speak.


a previous poster entered this

I CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT, AND THAT THE LICENSE INDICATED HAS NOT BEEN SUSPENDED NOR REVOKED.
I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT A VALID STATE DRIVER'S LICENSE MUST ACCOMPANY THIS PERMIT, AND THAT THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY AS LONG AS
THE STATE LICENSE IS VALID, BUT NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE THE PERMIT IS ISSUED.

I see a lot of "certifies" but no oaths or affirmations...being structured for US DL use abroad it's made in reference to the USA system. the treaty format is simpler still.

tickets may be "under penalty of perjury" but so what? the only info on there is identification.

[wserra]

The "right to travel" does not mean what you think it means. If you want elaboration, read Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) (free Findlaw copy here). It has nothing to do with roads, and everything to do with the Privileges and Immunities Clause not permitting one state to erect barriers to citizens of another.

As far as non-residents driving, the law is that the non-resident must have a valid license from his place of residence. If you disagree, please cite something.

[Farmer Giles]

Farmer Giles on Tue Mar 09, 2010 5:03 pm

I dont think there is any standard codified provision out there for "clearly explaining why".

Whether or not that's true, it's irrelevant. Your premise is like those of the Tax denier idiots who while that there is no law making anyone liable to pay income tax. Certain concepts in the law are not codified because they are susceptible of "plain meaning" -- in other words, I don't need to have a codified standard for "clearly explaining why" in order to have some reasonable idea of what a clear explanation is.

so now youre saying there is no codified law making an income tax? i dont believe that, ive seen title 26 and it clearly says there is one imposed. anyway, there are only 2 classes of driver and all nonresidents qualify under the same mode, thats equal protection.

[Farmer Giles]

As far as non-residents driving, the law is that the non-resident must have a valid license from his place of residence. If you disagree, please cite something.

but i do agree. and it isnt up to me anyway. the question is what is the difference between a "valid license" and a "drivers license". all VC make the note that a DL is issued by that state, and the "valid license to operate" is a more general privilege.

if I must ill post links to VC's from CA, IL and PA, but its nothing new anyway. Also there is the text of the 1949 Geneva treaty on road traffic.

[Farmer Giles]

As far as non-residents driving, the law is that the non-resident must have a valid license from his place of residence. If you disagree, please cite something.

but i do agree. and it isnt up to me anyway. the question is what is the difference between a "valid license" and a "drivers license". all VC make the note that a DL is issued by that state, and the "valid license to operate" is a more general privilege.

if I must ill post links to VC's from CA, IL and PA, but its nothing new anyway. Also there is the text of the 1949 Geneva treaty on road traffic.


I have something put together specifically for Illinois, just cites from the code mostly. If someone tells me how to post a document ill link it that way, its just a WORD DOC

[Judge Roy Bean]

...
the point here is that there are ONLY 2 classes of driver

resident

nonresident

there is no 3rd or 4th or 5th option ... and every person of the same class is equally qualified under the same conditions, which is simply "due process" and "equal protection"

Actually, there are variances in qualification. There are limited use permits as well as commercial class licenses.

...
" it doest matter where i get my valid photo ID

It does. In almost all circumstances is must be a "government issued" ID.