Jump to content

First they came for the Democrats...


Recommended Posts

BTW Rune, time for you to read the Constitution....the right to protest is in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. However, it could be argued that from the Draft Card Burning Case (US vs. O'Brien) that the same motive for that ruling (interference to smooth operation of a government system) could be used in the weak argument here.

 

Terrible analogy. How is she interfering with the smooth operation of the government? And you missed Rune's point. The 1st amendment protects our right to free speech but the 14th amendment applies the 1st amendment to the states.

 

You want to let the courts decide? Fine, aside from the case you point too almost all cases involving the issue of free speech on a state level usually always goes with the plantiff. That may change with Bush's appointees but the fact is almost any federal court in the country now and in the past will and would have sided with her.

This would not reach Federal Court immediately. Let it go to court in South Dakota. If the court goes her way, then she has more momentum behind her. If the state court goes against, no harm to her. This is the type of case the ACLU should be trying in court. It is a simple, yet fundamental issue with far-reaching consequences.

 

Huh? It is a contitutional issue. She can litigate it in the federal courts if she wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is Jimmy's dream girl.

 

But anyways, it's a stupid license plate and if I saw someone driving a Prius with a plate like that I would feel inclined to point and laugh, but i'll be damned if some 1A nazi tries to take the plate away from her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is Jimmy's dream girl.

 

But anyways, it's a stupid license plate and if I saw someone driving a Prius with a plate like that I would feel inclined to point and laugh, but i'll be damned if some 1A nazi tries to take the plate away from her.

thanks for bringing me into this conversation private

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is Jimmy's dream girl.

 

But anyways, it's a stupid license plate and if I saw someone driving a Prius with a plate like that I would feel inclined to point and laugh, but i'll be damned if some 1A nazi tries to take the plate away from her.

thanks for bringing me into this conversation private

Lance Corporal.

 

If you're going to try and be a smart ass and call me by my rank, then get it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read some controversy over this a while back. I believe they tried to make the faces seen but I think it was also challenged in court. I'll look it up.

 

"Sultaana Freeman is suing the state of Florida over their revocation of her driver's license. The reason? The photo on the license was taken while Ms. Freeman was wearing a veil, which covers all of her face except her eyes, and is mandated by her religion," MandaX writes. "She claims that to be photographed without it would violate her beliefs; the state says that allowing veiled photos negates the identification value of the license. The Florida Attorney General's office argues that Ms. Freeman is 'hypersensitive' and therefore 'her expectation of privacy is not protected.' Ms. Freeman has offered to provide another form of identification, such as DNA or fingerprints. In addition, other states allow people to obtain licenses without photos for religious reasons."

 

Driving a car is not part of our constitution. It is a desire-not a necessity. She doesn't have to have a license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read some controversy over this a while back. I believe they tried to make the faces seen but I think it was also challenged in court. I'll look it up.

 

"Sultaana Freeman is suing the state of Florida over their revocation of her driver's license. The reason? The photo on the license was taken while Ms. Freeman was wearing a veil, which covers all of her face except her eyes, and is mandated by her religion," MandaX writes. "She claims that to be photographed without it would violate her beliefs; the state says that allowing veiled photos negates the identification value of the license. The Florida Attorney General's office argues that Ms. Freeman is 'hypersensitive' and therefore 'her expectation of privacy is not protected.' Ms. Freeman has offered to provide another form of identification, such as DNA or fingerprints. In addition, other states allow people to obtain licenses without photos for religious reasons."

 

Driving a car is not part of our constitution. It is a desire-not a necessity. She doesn't have to have a license.

 

Education is not part of our constitution, either. The analysis still applies if the state provides goods or services to people on the basis of some guidelines. In other words, the state does not have to give out licenses in general, but if it chooses to it must abide by the principles of due process and equal protection. In this case, the state's interest - identification - outweighs here religious rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She is Jimmy's dream girl.

 

But anyways, it's a stupid license plate and if I saw someone driving a Prius with a plate like that I would feel inclined to point and laugh, but i'll be damned if some 1A nazi tries to take the plate away from her.

thanks for bringing me into this conversation private

Lance Corporal.

 

If you're going to try and be a smart ass and call me by my rank, then get it right.

oh...sorry...i thought i did have it right! :mischief

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech via 1st amendment merely regulates what the federal government, and the states through the 14th amendment, CAN'T do. It does not say what a state CAN do.

 

I'm assuming you are referring to the state as the sovereign entity and not a individual state worker exercising their free speech rights. In such a situation, you would need another government entity to enroach upon said soverign state.

 

Can the federal government ban a state from flying a banner that reads "Free Scooter Libby"?

 

At that point I think one is getting into principles of federalism and not the 1st amendment. A state clearly has the power to put forth its opinion on various issues, as they do often via amicus briefs, passing legislation stating their position on something, etc etc.

 

So is the federal government encroaching on a state's power to do what it wants and is allowed to do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freedom of speech via 1st amendment merely regulates what the federal government, and the states through the 14th amendment, CAN'T do. It does not say what a state CAN do.

 

I'm assuming you are referring to the state as the sovereign entity and not a individual state worker exercising their free speech rights. In such a situation, you would need another government entity to enroach upon said soverign state.

 

Can the federal government ban a state from flying a banner that reads "Free Scooter Libby"?

 

At that point I think one is getting into principles of federalism and not the 1st amendment. A state clearly has the power to put forth its opinion on various issues, as they do often via amicus briefs, passing legislation stating their position on something, etc etc.

 

So is the federal government encroaching on a state's power to do what it wants and is allowed to do?

 

Its just an issue I'm bringing out for some intelligent debate which is often lacking on the board. I am talking about a state as a state.

 

This is why its an issue b/c the constitution is composed of negative rights as opposed to positive rights. An example was the Court house with the 10 commandments posted. But now i pose a question unrelated to religion or seperation of church and stateand into the realm of political speech. IMO theres no easy answer to this question.

 

So when I say can a state fly that banner, the correct wording as you mentioned would be, Can the federally government constitutionally ban this speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read some controversy over this a while back. I believe they tried to make the faces seen but I think it was also challenged in court. I'll look it up.

 

"Sultaana Freeman is suing the state of Florida over their revocation of her driver's license. The reason? The photo on the license was taken while Ms. Freeman was wearing a veil, which covers all of her face except her eyes, and is mandated by her religion," MandaX writes. "She claims that to be photographed without it would violate her beliefs; the state says that allowing veiled photos negates the identification value of the license. The Florida Attorney General's office argues that Ms. Freeman is 'hypersensitive' and therefore 'her expectation of privacy is not protected.' Ms. Freeman has offered to provide another form of identification, such as DNA or fingerprints. In addition, other states allow people to obtain licenses without photos for religious reasons."

 

Driving a car is not part of our constitution. It is a desire-not a necessity. She doesn't have to have a license.

 

Education is not part of our constitution, either.

But it is a part of every state constitution. It is in this sense that K-12 education is compulsory, whereas postsecondary education is a privilege to those who merit it (with, of course, appropriate aid for those who can't afford it). On a different note, driving is a privilege, so Ms. Freeman should expect to show her face for the privilege, as it would be necessary for general safety (as in whether her car has been stolen, for the simplest case). The issue that would put this on par with compulsory education, however, would be the requirement of a national ID or a state photo ID according to the laws passed by either. That's where we get into the sticky parts, regarding whether she would have to show her face. It would be absolutely necessary for national-security purposes, but it would be violating her interpretation of religion. If there is a precedent in any other liberal democracy, I would like to know what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read some controversy over this a while back. I believe they tried to make the faces seen but I think it was also challenged in court. I'll look it up.

 

"Sultaana Freeman is suing the state of Florida over their revocation of her driver's license. The reason? The photo on the license was taken while Ms. Freeman was wearing a veil, which covers all of her face except her eyes, and is mandated by her religion," MandaX writes. "She claims that to be photographed without it would violate her beliefs; the state says that allowing veiled photos negates the identification value of the license. The Florida Attorney General's office argues that Ms. Freeman is 'hypersensitive' and therefore 'her expectation of privacy is not protected.' Ms. Freeman has offered to provide another form of identification, such as DNA or fingerprints. In addition, other states allow people to obtain licenses without photos for religious reasons."

 

Driving a car is not part of our constitution. It is a desire-not a necessity. She doesn't have to have a license.

 

Education is not part of our constitution, either.

But it is a part of every state constitution. It is in this sense that K-12 education is compulsory, whereas postsecondary education is a privilege to those who merit it (with, of course, appropriate aid for those who can't afford it). On a different note, driving is a privilege, so Ms. Freeman should expect to show her face for the privilege, as it would be necessary for general safety (as in whether her car has been stolen, for the simplest case). The issue that would put this on par with compulsory education, however, would be the requirement of a national ID or a state photo ID according to the laws passed by either. That's where we get into the sticky parts, regarding whether she would have to show her face. It would be absolutely necessary for national-security purposes, but it would be violating her interpretation of religion. If there is a precedent in any other liberal democracy, I would like to know what it is.

 

Constitutionally it doesn't matter if it's a privilege. The 14th Amendment requires that states provide equal protection in all the services or benefits it provides. Certainly, there are several levels of constitutional scrutiny, which we don't have to discuss.

 

So, the fact that it's a privilege doesn't give the government the right to arbitrarily or discriminatorily deny those goods or services to anyone it pleases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Night Phantom

Arising out of all this is a very interesting constitutional question. What rights does a state government as a sovereign entity have in exercising its free speech in its capacity as a State. For example, can a state or employees in their official capacity protest against a federal policy?

DC does it. They have their "Taxation without Representation" license plates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arising out of all this is a very interesting constitutional question. What rights does a state government as a sovereign entity have in exercising its free speech in its capacity as a State. For example, can a state or employees in their official capacity protest against a federal policy?

DC does it. They have their "Taxation without Representation" license plates.

 

True, although DC is a strange place in legal terms though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...