In article . com>,
"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.

> The Texas driver has his driver license suspended, and it is assumed he
> can no longer legally drive, on Texas highways, or any other state's
> highways.

Well, why are you assuming this? Tennessee is free to say that if you
do something illegal in another state that would be legal in Tennessee,
they won't hold it against you. (Some states do in fact do this.
That's why the DL compact merely shares information among the states and
lets each state decide what to do about a situation. It does not
require that every state suspend someone's license or driving privileges
if another state does so.)

On the other hand, the Tennessee driver does not have their
> driver license suspended, and it is assumed they may continue to
> legally drive in their own state, in other states, and in Texas.

This is completely untrue. Even if their Tennessee driver's license
remains valid, Texas can prohibit the person from driving in Texas, just
like it can with its own drivers.

I see this all the time in my line of work. NJ drivers come to NYC all
the time, and if they have a previously-unpaid speeding ticket, their
privilege of driving in NY will have been revoked. They'll be arrested
for unauthorized operation of a vehicle, even if their NJ license is
perfectly valid and in full effect.

Flat
> out, this DOES NOT exhibit "uniform regulations".
>
> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
> any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
> process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
> equal protection of the laws." -- 14th Amendment of the US Constitution
>
> "In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state
> may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public
> safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all
> motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others."
> - Hendrick v Maryland, 1915, http://laws.findlaw.com/us/235/610.html

Hendrick, which is about commercial taxicab insurance, and not driver
licensing, specifically held that it is OK to regulate vehicles on the
road.

And obviously the "uniformity of regulations" clause doesn't mean what
you think it means. Can't the state set the speed limit on one road to
50 MPH and set it on another road to 35 MPH? That's not uniform, but
its' completely legal.