| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bshabu
Joined: 03 Apr 2003
Posts: 200
Location: Kumagaya
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 2:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Glenski
When was this? I believe that this year Canadians can just change theirs for a Japanese one. The USA has seperate licenses for each state. I think that is why Japan and the USA does not have an agreement. The power lies within each state; not the national government, like Japan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shmooj
Joined: 11 Sep 2003
Posts: 1758
Location: Seoul, ROK
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Y'all got yer waires crassed there...
Yes you need a valid full license from your home country before you can simply transfer to a license (for those, like Canadians who can)
USAnians and anyone else who cannot simply transfer and anyone with no license whatsoever in their own country have to take the driving test. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
bshabu,
That was a couple of months ago.
shmooj put it best. If you have no license, how can you exchange it for a Japanese one, even if you are Canadian?
As for Americans, yes, each state has its own driver's license, but you can drive in any state with just one license. And, more importantly, it is the agreement between countries (Japan and USA) not between Japan and US states that governs whether there is such reciprocity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Glenski wrote: |
As for Americans, yes, each state has its own driver's license, but you can drive in any state with just one license. And, more importantly, it is the agreement between countries (Japan and USA) not between Japan and US states that governs whether there is such reciprocity.
|
Untrue, Glenski. And that's the entire problem.
The various Canadian provinces all reached agreements with Japan over licence exchange agreements individually.
I well remember the hassles that were involved in trying to get the Canadian government involved in the licencing issue when the IDP rules were varied in 2002.
It took hundreds of complaints to the Embassy and, in the end, the various Ministry's back in Canada along with complaints to (and from) the respective provinces before the national government would act at all. The end result? Japan finally began honouring the reciprocal agreements it'd signed with the provinces. No agreement exists between Canada and Japan as a whole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Posts: 12844
Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Cthulhu,
I said nothing about Canada and you said nothing about the agreement between the USA and Japan. What's your point related to the USA that I said which was so untrue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Glenski wrote: |
I said nothing about Canada and you said nothing about the agreement between the USA and Japan. What's your point related to the USA that I said which was so untrue?
|
In the context of the thread I took you to be saying that the agreements were reached by national governments only.
You appeared to be under the impression that the Canadian agreements were organised by the Canadian government itself and that this would have to also be the case if the US were to seek such a reciprocal agreement.
I was pointing out that such a assumption was untrue: just as the Canadian provinces were the ones that negoiated seperately and severally with the Japanese, so too individual US states were perfectly able to negoiate with the Japanese if they so chose.
The fly in the ointment that respect is the fact the US Federal government reserves the rights to negoiate with foreign nation states, although I think there is enough precedent in other areas that an individual US state could argue otherwise if it wanted to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bullitt
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 49
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| G Cthulhu wrote: |
The fly in the ointment that respect is the fact the US Federal government reserves the rights to negoiate with foreign nation states, although I think there is enough precedent in other areas that an individual US state could argue otherwise if it wanted to. |
For those that might be interseted... Individual states absolutely cannot enter into treaties with a foreign government. This power is expressly given to the executive(with the advice and consent of the senate) in article 2 section 2 of the US constitution.
Bullitt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
G Cthulhu
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Posts: 1373
Location: Way, way off course.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bullitt wrote: |
For those that might be interseted... Individual states absolutely cannot enter into treaties with a foreign government. This power is expressly given to the executive(with the advice and consent of the senate) in article 2 section 2 of the US constitution.
|
I always thought that too, but in the process of researching about reciprocal agreements for the Canadians I discovered that such agreements *do* exist between some US states and other countries.
Perhaps the Federal government has formally permitted them to? I wouldn't know (because I never bothered researching that further), but I can assure you that there are a few such agreements existing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bullitt
Joined: 12 Dec 2003
Posts: 49
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is probably more information than you want to know but...
While it may be possible for states to enter into agreements with a foreign government, their power to do so is very limited. They certainly cannot adopt a policy that is contrary to an existing treaty or federal statute. In fact a state cannot even pass a law within its own borders that has more than an incidental effect on foreign affairs(The supreme court held a California statue preventing foreign nationals form inheriting property to be an unconstitutional violation of the dormant foreign affairs clause) Also even if there is no federal statute directly covering what the state legislates, the state statute will be preempted if congress has legislated in the same field and a reasonable inference can be made that congress left no room for state law. There is also a concept called obstacle preemption that the courts use to strike down state statutes that stand as "an obstacle to the purposes and objectives of federal law." My understanding of the kinds of agreements that states usually make are commercial in nature, for example a state would be able to make a sale contract with a foreign government. Sorry for legalese...law school has warped my mind.
Bullitt |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
