Frank, I was just trying to make sure that contrary to what you said in your post, it is clear that (1) drivers' licenses are a matter of state, not federal law, and therefore, are not a matter of Congressional legislation; and (2) drivers' licensing laws are not automatically reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court -- in fact, it would be an exceptional situation for the U.S. Supreme Court to do so.

A lot of what has been posted on this topic demonstrates that a lot of the general public simply do not understand the legislative and judicial process and functions, and I was just trying to provide a little insight to help overcome that misunderstanding. Bottom line, I think it's time to quit beating a dead horse--let's bury it and move on to discussions on photography, not politics.

The laws regarding drivers' licenses are a matter of state legislation, not Congressional action. As such, the state laws are enacted by state legislatures, most of which are bi-cameral (2 houses, like Congress), but at least one is unicameral (only one house).

Once passed by the state legislature, the laws go to the state governor, who either signs it into law or vetoes it and if vetoed, the state legislature can override the governor's veto like Congress can override the President's veto. But, the U.S. Supreme Court never passes on state laws unless someone files a lawsuit either in the appropriate state court or the U.S. District Court for that state.

The only way such state laws would ever get reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court is if the losing party at the trial court level appeals to the state supreme court and then under certain circumstances, the losing party can file a direct appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; or if the lawsuit began in the fed. trial court, the losing parting can file an appeal with the fed. circuit court of appeals for the circuit in which the state is located and then a further appeal can be made to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in either case, the U.S. Supreme Court accepts only a very few such appeals and has the discretion to refuse to hear the appeal.

If the lawsuit began in a state trial court, the state's supreme court may review such legislation, but again only if someone files a lawsuit in the state trial court and loses and appeals to the state's appeals court and loses again and then appeals to the state's supreme court, which again only accepts very few such appeals.

In short, there is no automatic review of any legislation by either the state or U.S. Supreme Courts, and again, those courts more often than not refuse to accept such appeals--it's purely within their discretion.

Anyway, that's the Cliff Note version of Judicial Process 101.

As much as I agree that our country is being run from the top down which is contrary to how it is supposed to be run, it is also a Nation of laws which are to be based on the Constitution. Over the years our Judicial system has become corrupt, and as a result many unConstitutional laws have been created and allowed to stand. That does not give We the People authorization to disobey such laws.

Our main objective as conservatives should be to collectively clear the corruption from the whole governing system and as we agree, take back our power as a United People of these States.
Then and only then we can eliminate the bad laws. But in the mean time they are the laws that we are stuck with.