Flying_Mollusk Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinmemito Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 Her free speech stops when she steps onto property rights of the State of South Dakota. That is completely incorrect. Constitutional law says otherwise. :thumbup I'll throw in a public forum mention for good measure. Yup :thumbup Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinmemito Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 This is to the people who are attorneys or in law school: Why even bother? You know Cape doesn't know anything about this issue. He's talking out of his arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accord Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy42Jack0 Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying_Mollusk Posted July 6, 2007 Share Posted July 6, 2007 This is to the people who are attorneys or in law school: Why even bother? You know Cape doesn't know anything about this issue. He's talking out of his arse. Good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yenta Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 This is to the people who are attorneys or in law school: Why even bother? You know Cape doesn't know anything about this issue. He's talking out of his arse. Good point. Nomination for post of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accord Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldeagle037 Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 Since we are talking about what the state can do or not do concerning the anti-Bush plate...for arguments sake...can a state ban the issuance of a drivers license when the photo involves a femal wearing a Burka? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yenta Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinmemito Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy42Jack0 Posted July 7, 2007 Share Posted July 7, 2007 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legacyofCangelosi Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinmemito Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I believe they have every right to do that ... that's lobbying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legacyofCangelosi Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 I believe they have every right to do that ... that's lobbying. But its unclear to what extent, for example can a government building hang a banner outside that says "Pardon Scooter Libby". Its not really something thats been at the forefront. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinmemito Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 If you have Chemerinsky's book on constitutional law you may be able to find your answer. I really don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying_Mollusk Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legacyofCangelosi Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BullDurham Posted July 9, 2007 Author Share Posted July 9, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prinmemito Posted July 9, 2007 Share Posted July 9, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Night Phantom Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricWiener Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 There goes my PU55YLKR plate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legacyofCangelosi Posted July 10, 2007 Share Posted July 10, 2007 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.