Woman turns upper level of South Shore Plaza into a drive-thru

The idea is that doctors would be mandated reporters when they find that their patients have issues that could preclude them from driving. At the end of the day, the Registry would be the ones to revoke the license based on the concerns of the doctor. That is, assuming that those reports are not buried where other license revocations reports.

I didn't notice that there had been any further discussion of this. I will respond anyway, though my response will probably go unnoticed.

Neither of your points have any relevance to the subject. You said that doctors could revoke licenses; reporting is not revoking. I said that giving doctors such authority would violate the due process cause of the Constitution; that does not imply a constitutional right to drive, only that a license to drive constitutes "property" in the sense of the 5th and 14th amendments, and thus that one cannot be deprived of it without due process of law. This was granted in the decision Mackey vs. Montrym, which decided that it was allowable for the State of Massachusetts to revoke the driver's license of a person who refuses a breathalyzer test. It stated that "Suspension of a driver's license for statutorily defined cause implicates a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause." It then went on to give several reasons why the State's actions in the case were acceptable in spite of that protection. None these are in any way applicable to the State delegating the right to revoke licenses to private citizens.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/1/

I think the comment above was just reminded of them because of the mall topic, the Orange Julius topic then reminded me of the song. So we're well off on a tangent from the South Shore Plaza (which is not the South Shore Mall because for fifteen years after it opened in 1961 it was an open air pedestrian plaza).