FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED OCT. 8, 1997
M., a Georgia state representative, writes:
"Vin -- Got your piece about drivers license security and the '94 federal Privacy Act. Here in Georgia they now fingerprint for drivers licenses. Any thoughts on the constitutionality on a federal level for this? 1st Amendment -- religious, 4th -- secure in their persons, 5th -- self-incrimination, etc.? Help is needed in Georgia."
I replied:
Hi, M. --
There is a basic principle of negotiation that is understood almost everywhere, apparently, but among the political opponents of statism.
If management offers a 1 percent raise, and a union negotiator hopes to end up at 4 percent, the union's initial demand will be not 4 percent, but ... 7 or 8 percent. Duh.
Yet those of us who oppose creeping fascism in the form on "fingerprints for drivers licenses," "deadbeat dad employment registries," or whatever, offer as our first proposal "Let's revoke the fingerprint stuff and put it back just the way it was." Then, we're surprised when the resulting "compromise" ends up "waiving the fingerprint requirement for retired police officers and military personnel, only."
Duh.
The proper approach is to say, "See, we always warned you this 'drivers license' stuff had precious little do to with certifying that people know how to drive, and EVERYTHING to do with creating a police numbering and inventory system ... stuff right out of the police-state textbooks of Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler.
"Therefore, our proposal today is to make Georgia the first state in the nation to repeal its drivers license law. We will issue them no more, nor shall our police retain any authority to ask for them.
"By law, beginning on July 1, 1998, the presumption shall be that anyone driving on our highways has a right to freely travel where he pleases, without being required to present on demand any form of 'internal passport.' And just as Vermont allows out-of-state residents to carry concealed firearms without a 'permit,' so our police will no longer ask out-of-state drivers to present their 'licenses,' either ... in the hopes this enlightened step toward freedom will be copied elsewhere.
"The statutes against reckless driving, driving in such a way as to kill or endanger life, and fleeing the scene of an injury accident or violent felony, shall remain in effect. Suspects apprehended on those charges will be immediately taken into custody , until their identity can be ascertained down at the station. All the other routine 'traffic offenses' (which really only serve as excuses to pull over minority youths in hopes of catching them with a gun or a reefer -- in violation of the Fourth Amendment) are also hereby repealed. If insurance companies want drivers who they insure to carry 'photo IDs,' they are free to issue them, but no state requirement will apply.
" 'Traffic tickets'? Good riddance. Suddenly, our available police for staking out and pursuing real, violent felons will effectively double overnight. Suddenly, we'll have enough 'extra' judges and courtrooms to put real, violent felons on trial the same week they're apprehended.
Suddenly, drivers seeing a police cruiser in the rear-view mirror will actually be glad the officer is there to watch out for violent predators, giving him or her a smile and wave, instead of feeling that stomach-churning moment of panic as they worry whether the taillight has a minor crack, whether they've been caught inadvertently driving 11 miles above the arbitrarily-set 'speed limit' (most of which are purposely set more than 10 mph below median recorded speeds), etc.
"After all, the NINTH Amendment says 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'
"Was George Washington, in his entire lifetime, ever waved over to the side of the road and ordered by an officer of the law to present evidence that he had a 'license' to ride a horse of operate a carriage? Was he ever fined for failing to display on his horse some kind of metallic plate with a 'registration number'? Did this ever happen ANYONE before 1910?
"Clearly, for more than 120 years, the citizens retained an 'unenumerated right' to travel the public roads without paying any kind of fee, or acquiring any 'license' or 'registration plate.' Nowhere in Article I Section 8 is the Congress granted any power to limit, restrict, or regulate this pre-existing right. And, as we all found out during the Civil Rights movement, no individual state can 'abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.'
"Now, shall we move right along to getting rid of these 'registration plates,' which represent nothing but a hidden, unauthorized property tax on automobile ownership, anyway? ..."
Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127.
-- Samuel Adams