Originally Posted by bv11
521.001 6(b) means the state can still suspend or revoke someone who doesn't have a driver's license. All states have something similar.
I agree that all states have something similar. They must have.
I disagree that when a sentence reads:
"License" means an authorization
to operate a motor vehicle that is issued under or granted by
the laws of this state. The term includes
(A) a driver's license;
(B) the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether the person holds a driver's license
(C) a nonresident's operating privilege.
"License" (for this chapter) means authorization ... issued under or granted by the state and it includes the privilege of a person to operate a motor vehicle regardless of whether that person holds a driver's license. It also includes a driver's license (as defined for this chapter) and a nonresident's operating privilege.
Maybe reading it this way clarifies that it has nothing to do with what you suggested. There doesn't seem to be anything regarding suspension or revocation in this chapter except in reference to those who have applied for and received a Texas driver license.
It is an issue of contract. The application is a contract. Once under contract the rules stipulated for holding the driver license apply to that person. Those who have not entered into this contract are not bound by those rules.
What would be revoked or suspended with a driver who holds no license?
Thank you for a great example of trying to bend a very straight-forward definition to fit what you would like to continue to believe.
I went through the same phases of denial at the beginning. After reading more on court decisions, better understanding contract law and the basis of our legal system (common law), learning the fine points about how writing legal stuff differs from regular conversation, and purchasing a couple of law dictionaries as references, I've come to understand why it is written this way.
Without this rather well hidden gem the entire chapter may not pass the test of constitutionality.
Just to be clear, I have no illusion that this is a conspiracy. It is merely momentum of one bad choice followed by another.
My best guess is that back in the day the state wrote laws to regulate commercial use of the roads and required licensing for commercial drivers. Pretty soon some schmuck who wasn't a commercial driver wanted to have a license to inflate his ego. Then another, and another, hounding their representatives until someone made it possible so that those who are not required to have a license, could have a license. That is the most logical chain of events I can fathom which would lead to this. Now, after generations of this foolishness it is accepted as if it were required by all.
A license clearly isn't required for non-commercial operation, and there is a very good reason why it isn't. Only those who have taken the time to learn why can connect the dots. They don't teach this stuff in school any more, and the attorneys and other officials who rake in the dough over this aren't about to see it any other way. But, the fact remains that this is what is written, and, they cannot change this or it will fail in court.