Larry wrote:
> proffsl wrote:
> > Larry wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > That's not at all what the Interstate Drivers License Compact
> > > says.
> > >
> > > Among the 45 states that signed on to the compact, they simply
> > > *share* information with each other (and at least one other state -
> > > Massachusetts - shares information with all other states despite
> > > not singing on to the compact).
> > >
> > > What each other state does with information provided to it is up to
> > > each individual state. The IDLC says nothing about this, and each
> > > state can do whatever they want based on information they are told.
> > > For example, Kansas will revoke your license if you have a DWI
> > > conviction in another state, but will not revoke your license if
> > > another state issues an administrative suspension on your license
> > > or driving privileges.
> >
> > This is the reason Driver Licensing as a Police Power is
> > UnConstitutional. Driver Licenses are wrongly assumed to be
> > Constitutional under Police Powers. But, Police Powers must be
> > composed of "uniform regulations" (Hendrick v Maryland). Yet, you
> > demonstrate by your own words above that Driver Licensing IS NOT
> > composed of "uniform regulations". Spicifically, what may get one's
> > driver licenses suspended in their own state does not necessary get
> > an out of state driver licenses suspended, and they may continue to
> > drive within the state that suspended it's own citizen's driver license.
>
> This is not at all what the requirement of uniformity means, proffsl.
>
> Something can be legal in one state but illegal in another. Heck, it
> can be legal in some parts of a state but illegal in others. (Take
> prostitution in Nevada, for example). Or even if some things, like
> murder, are prohibited everywhere, each state can define the crime its
> own way so that a particular incident is murder in one state but not in
> another.
>
> The uniformity requirement of the police power applies only to the
> government exerting the power. If a state wants to implement a driver's
> licensing law, or any other law, *that governmental entity* must
> uniformly apply the law to everyone it covers. One state isn't bound by
> what other states require regarding drivers licenses, or anything else
> in the criminal or penal laws.
>
> > For example: A Texas citizen has a Texas driver license. A Tennessee
> > citizen has a Tennessee driver license. One day, both drivers are
> > driving beside each other on a Texas highway, both drivers committing
> > the same traffic violation, and are stopped at the same time by the
> > same police officer. In Texas, that offense might get one's driver
> > license suspended. In Tennessee, it may not. Both drivers might be
> > equally fined, but Texas can not suspend a Tennessee driver license.
>
> BBZZZZT!!! Texas can revoke your privilege to drive in Texas. So since
> both drivers violated Texas law, neither driver can drive in Texas until
> they pay the fine or the suspension period is over or whatever the law
> requires.
>
> Texas cannot prohibit your right to drive in Tennessee, regardless of
> where you live.

So, Texas can presumeably deny the Texas citizen the Right to drive in
Flordia by revoking his Texas driver license, but Texas can not deny
the Tennessee citizen the Right to drive in Flordia. Again, not
uniform.