Is that Act another case of elected representatives violating their oaths of office to "uphold and defend the Constitution..."
To answer your question in short (without getting into a long discussion of the original debates and discussions even as the Amendment was being drafted) common sense answers with a resounding, "
No." With the drafters' general desire for a "narrow construction", coupled with a equal appreciation of federalism where federalism is due, it is common sense to say that this is an appropriate area of federalism and we benefit from federal standards of driver's license data integrity and document security.
This might not have passed muster in the early part of the 20th century when a driver's license was just a driver's license. Today we have over 25,000 commercial flights crisscrossing the skies every day and most of the passengers submit a driver's license as the de facto national ID. Other countries' citizens use passports in their day-to-day business of opening bank accounts and boarding domestic flights, but Americans don't usually carry or even possess passports; ours is a huge country and most Americans will never even travel outside its borders.
It's actually quite clever to leave the issuance of DLs up to the states, but maintain standards that protect the common interests and security of Americans as a whole. Illinois will whine and cry about this being an "unfunded mandate" but I have no sympathy with them thinking they're immune from standardization. I bet I could look at their state budget and find plenty of stupid, feel-good social programs to cut which are of less importance than ID document controls.
