Is picture ID on a DL and a CCL an absolute must to ensure public safety?

[longeyes]

So if I can only use my right hand to drive, for religious reasons of course, that's okay too, protected by the First Amendment?

 

[longeyes]

cuchulainn

Okay, let the prospective driver pick the fool-proof means of identification that he or she chooses? How does that grab ya?

Why do we need identification? So that when you leave me a paraplegic I know who to sue, that's why. And why you need to have insurance.

 

[cuchulainn]

Okay, let the prospective driver pick the fool-proof means of identification that he or she chooses? How does that grab ya?

Look, I actually have no problem with photo drivers licenses. And, hey, maybe they actually do protect a vital public safety that I'm not aware of. I'm just asking someone to tell me what that public safety is.

Why do we need identification? So that when you leave me a paraplegic I know who to sue, that's why. And why you need to have insurance.

OK, you just explained how photo drivers licenses theoretically facilitate lawsuits, and while it's certaintly debatable whether the need to facilitate lawsuits is more important than the 1A, I'm not goint to get into that.

The question at hand is how a photo drivers license protects a "public right to safety" so vital that it trumps the 1A.

We haven't even learned what that public safety is.

 

[longeyes]

Would you mind spelling out the 1A problem here? Florida isn't stopping this woman from practicing her religion. There is no law that says Moslems can't drive cars in Florida. Nor are Muslims being asked to do anything that is not being asked of all other citizens who wish to drive automobiles in Florida. And this is not about denial of her freedom of speech but rather about her unwillingness to "speak." Perhaps you mean to find a right of privacy (9A?) that gives her the right to be free of governmental intrusion as regards her identity altogether? It might be hard to find a precedent for that, don't you think, especially since she has no doubt already voluntarily given up that right numerous times before?

 

[Seminole]

Longeyes:

Would you mind spelling out the 1A problem here? Florida isn't stopping this woman from practicing her religion.

Well, I'm no expert in Islam, but according to this report the woman's lawyer stated

his client believes that taking a photograph of her face would violate the Koran, the Muslim holy book. "She believes her religion prohibits taking pictures of facial features.''

Furthermore,

Other courts have ruled that fundamentalist Christians who also have religious prohibitions against having their photographs taken can get licenses without one.

I'm not so concerned with the First Ammendment issues here, however as I am with why the state is so concerned with getting her picture. They initially issued her a driver's license without a picture, something that they would surely not have done had there been a true public safety issue (such as you have yet to give an example of). Furthermore, other states issue licenses without pictures--again, something I doubt they would do if photographs were truly necessary for "public safety" (whatever THAT is).

 

[Delmar]

Well, lesse here. She is apparently married, and if she was married in the US, they took a blood sample to make sure she doesn't have the nuclear heebeejeebies-pretty severe compared to having your picture taken I think. And if she is a true muslim-why is she wanting to drive a car in the first place? Fundamentalist muslim countries I have been to do not allow women to operate a car at any time. If she comes to my place of business and writes a check or slaps down plastic-I wanna see a matching face with a photo ID-or she better have cash. Period.

and what does a muslim high school yearbook picture look like

 

[Jim Diver]

Shoud she have a license?? NO!! Why? Simple. She obviously plans to drive with that burqa on so her vision would be impaired. She would be a hazzard to all drivers..

Second, this lady is a scum bag. She refused to allow police to check her kid for signs of abuse sighting religious reasons.... She did not have a problem getting photographed when she was arrested in 1998 for domestic violence...

She is a loser. Nothing more.

 

[longeyes]

To me this case is a clear instance of one religious group attempting to extort special privileges not available to other groups and to assert the transcendency of religious beliefs over civil law. I don't see it as a 1A issue at all. As for the ACLU their current agenda seems to lie not in protecting individual liberties so much as shattering any cultural cohesion still remaining in the United States. I'll leave it to the members of this forum to decide why they might want to do that.

There are a couple of "public safety" issues here. One involves positive identification after a vehicular accident. Another, increasingly important, is that driver's licenses are used to verify identity for voting.

 

[cuchulainn]

longeyes: There are a couple of "public safety" issues here. One involves positive identification after a vehicular accident. Another, increasingly important, is that driver's licenses are used to verify identity for voting.

Please explain:

1) How either is a public safety issue. Sorry, simply applying the adjective "public safety issue" to something doesn't make it so.

2) Why these as-yet-unexplained "public safety issues" are so vital as to trump the First Amendment.

longeyes: To me this case is a clear instance of one religious group attempting to extort special privileges not available to other groups and to assert the transcendency of religious beliefs over civil law.

Yeah! Didja hear that the Christians are transcending civil law and EVERY SINGLE WEEK are giving gradeschoolers the single-most abused drug-of-addiction in America -- alcohol? If ever there was a vital "public safety" law, this prohibition against giving alcohol to kids is one. I think I'm going to turn in my priest.

BTW: That bit about "make no law...prohibiting the free exercize therof [religion]" means that religious beliefs DO transcend civil law. That's why we don't arrest priests for weekly violating the laws against giving alcohol to minors. That's why schools don't punish Jewish boys for DAILY violations of the rules against wearing hats inside school. That's why Muslim girls get to keep their faces covered in schools that prohibit covered faces so teacher and administors can readily identify students. Indeed, in my state and many others (due to KKK activity a century ago) it is against the law to appear in public with your face covered (*). But I see Muslim women violating this law all the time with impunity. The Horror!

(*) Except at certain once-religious holidays like Halloween and Mardi Gras ... yes those too are religious exceptions to a civil law put in place for "public safety."

Delmar: and if she was married in the US, they took a blood sample to make sure she doesn't have the nuclear heebeejeebies-pretty severe compared to having your picture taken I think.

I was married in the U.S. (twice) and never had a blood sample taken. But what does that have to do with this topic?

Delmar: And if she is a true muslim-why is she wanting to drive a car in the first place? Fundamentalist muslim countries I have been to do not allow women to operate a car at any time.

Yes, the Muslim nations are a bit behind the West in women's rights. What does that have to do with anything? Christian countries used to prohibit women from doing all kinds of things. Does that mean 18th Century Christian women who voted in one nation were out of line because other Christian nations prohibitied women from voting? That's the same logic you used.

Jim Diver: She obviously plans to drive with that burqa on so her vision would be impaired. She would be a hazzard to all drivers..

As any truck driver knows, side mirrors are vital when your rear and side vision is impaired. I'll go along with a prohibition against her driving a vehicle without mirrors on both sides. Nonetheless, that has absolutely nothing to do with her photo once she and her vehicle are road-legal.

Jim Diver: Second, this lady is a scum bag. She refused to allow police to check her kid for signs of abuse sighting religious reasons....

Illogical ad hominem. She may very well be a scum bag, but her being wrong on point A) (checking her kid) does not make her wrong on point B) (license photo).

Jim Diver: She did not have a problem getting photographed when she was arrested in 1998 for domestic violence...

You know that for sure, huh? Just because she had her picture taken does not mean she had no problem with it.

Jim Diver: She is a loser. Nothing more.

I'm sorry, I missed the part of the First Amendment where losers lose their rights. (Oh I get it, they're losers of their rights!)

 

[Smoke]

This is NOT a 1st ammendment issue. No one is denying her, her religous freedom. It is perfectly OK for the state to say "If you want to drive a car, you have to have a photo I.D."

Thats it. THe right to drive a car is not mentioned in the BoR. If it offends her to have her photo taken, ride the bus. Another issue here not addressed is the fact that she converted to Islam. She was born and raised in the US and I think this is an issue that she is trying to prove how devoted she may be, but is in fact insulting every other Muslim that has had their picture taken.

If she chooses to make the journey to Mecca she will have to have her photo taken for passports. Is it OK then?

Every traditionally Islamic nation; EVERY ONE; requires photo I.D.'s to drive a car and on Passports.

This woman needs to just go away. And the state should and I beleive will prevail.

my $.02

 

[cuchulainn]

Smoke: It is perfectly OK for the state to say "If you want to drive a car, you have to have a photo I.D."

Indeed, it is perfectly OK for the state to say, "You may not give alcohol to children" (and all 50 do AFAIK). Yet we don't arrest priests for weekly violating those laws. It is perfectly OK for the state to say "If you want to walk on the sidewalk, your face must be uncovered" (and many do including mine). Yet we don't arrest Muslim women for violating those laws.

 

[cuchulainn]

Smoke: THe right to drive a car is not mentioned in the BoR.

Yes it is, just not by name

 

[longeyes]

cuchulainn

I think it's apparent that your views of what constitutes public safety need to be explained. I think we have every right to ensure the integrity of our voting system. You can call that public safety, self-defense, or national security, I don't care.

I am aware that we have granted exemptions for various religious groups against civil law. In that lies the dilemma that may eventually rock this Republic. I guess it depends on whether you value a Constitutional Republic built on law or would prefer a constellation of religious communities each following its own lights.

The Framers anchored the 2A in a natural right. To encourage religious primacy against civil law takes us to the inevitable question, bound to arise more and more frequently in the New America, "Uh, and whose God is that, Sir?"

Please explain why a Muslim woman insisting on not providing a photo is a 1A issue.

 

[longeyes]

Where folly like this, with Koranic exegetes becoming advisors and expert witnesses, will take us isn't pretty. Look ahead and you'll see a potential scenario of Christian taxpayers levying extra tolls on Muslim drivers using highways funded largely with non-Muslim dollars. Is that the America you want? Well, we're getting it, with the increasing fragmentation of society into fundamentally separatist enclaves trying to not only be left alone but, rather, to assert their hegemony over other groups. If you want an America of warlords and tribes, you'll have it in another generation.

And maybe THAT will qualify as a "public safety" issue.

 

[cuchulainn]

Longeyes,

Thank you for conceding that there is absolutely no "public safety" need whatsoever for photos on drivers licenses.

longeyes: I think we have every right to ensure the integrity of our voting system.

So issue special voter ID cards and accomodate Muslim women by having their voting IDs checked by women. That has absolutely nothing to do with drivers licenses. (The new voting laws stiputate photo IDs, not photo drivers licenses)

And as explained above by Broken Paw, it is laughable to suggest that drivers licenses actually assure identity, so using DLs to ensure the integrity of our voting system is flawed on its face.

longeyes: I am aware that we have granted exemptions for various religious groups against civil law. In that lies the dilemma that may eventually rock this Republic. I guess it depends on whether you value a Constitutional Republic built on law or would prefer a constellation of religious communities each following its own lights.

So you are saying that the framers were flawed in exempting religious acts from the control of civil law? Why will the Constitutional Republic fall if we follow the very Constitution that Republic is founded upon? Why is violating the Constitution vital to preserving the Constitution?

As well, you have no problem with the cops raiding churches this Sunday and arresting priests for giving alcohol to minors?

longeyes: To encourage religious primacy against civil law takes us to the inevitable question, bound to arise more and more frequently in the New America, "Uh, and whose God is that, Sir?"

Why do you have a problem with the Framers placing religious beliefs above civil law (e.g. exempting them from civil law)? Why were Madison, Jefferson et al. mistaken in exempting religiouis beliefs from civil law? Again, why is violating the Constitution they wrote vital to preserving that Constitution?

longeyes: Please explain why a Muslim woman insisting on not providing a photo is a 1A issue.

1) The 1A stipulates that there shall be no laws "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion.

2) Therefore a law that violates her free exercise of religion violates the First Amendment.

3) Her religious belief is that she must not remove her veil in front of men.

4) Thus, not removing her veil in front of men is part of her "free exercise" of religion.

5) The law would make her remove her veil for cops at traffic stops. Most cops are men. So there is a good chance she would be forced to violate her "free exercise" of religion (*).

5b) Most DMV photos are taken in public rooms, meaning she would have to unveil in public just to get the photo taken. This too would violate her "free exercise" of religion(**).

(*) Incidentally, the state could deal with this by having a special procedure for checking the IDs of Muslim women, much like the special procedures they have for body searches of all women.

(**) See (*)

 

[cuchulainn]

Look ahead and you'll see a potential scenario of Christian taxpayers levying extra tolls on Muslim drivers using highways funded largely with non-Muslim dollars. Is that the America you want? Well, we're getting it, with the increasing fragmentation of society into fundamentally separatist enclaves trying to not only be left alone but, rather, to assert their hegemony over other groups. If you want an America of warlords and tribes, you'll have it in another generation.

And maybe THAT will qualify as a "public safety" issue.

Hogwash.

It is utterly illogical to suggest that

A) Exempting the religious practice of a minority (Muslims)

will

B) Lead to persecution of that minority.


"We need to violate your rights now so that you will not be persecuted later on a matter utterly unrelated to our current violation of your rights."

Edited to add: That is precisely the thinking of the ACLU when they work to forbid "Christmas concerts" at public schools.

 

[longeyes]

Hogwash, Sir? We shall see, we shall see. People resent special treatment. It's basic. We have a lot of groups that are demanding special treatment these days. Not fair treatment, special treatment. If you think there isn't a groundswell of resentment about this, put your ear to the ground.

It's interesting to know that you believe that religious practices, when they affect those not belonging to that religion, somehow trump civil law. Is that what you think the Framers, mostly lawyers, envisioned? Hogwash.

 

[cuchulainn]

Longeyes,

So you are in agreement with the ACLU? After all, you are using their arguments about "hegmony" of one religious group over another.

It's interesting to know that you believe that religious practices, when they affect those not belonging to that religion, somehow trump civil law.

Yes. And so did James Madison, Thomas Jefferson et al.

Short history lesson: The European nations wanted to have a "single society" and saw varied religions as threatening the same type of "chaos" that you and the ACLU envision. Thus they enacted civil laws that forbad people from exercising their religions (and they did worse).

Therefore, the purpose of the religion clause of the 1A was to stop civil laws that kept people from exercising their religions.

You are saying this is wrong. You are arguing that the First Amendment is flawed and should be ignored.

 

[jmbg29]

his client believes that taking a photograph of her face would violate the Koran, the Muslim holy book. "She believes her religion prohibits taking pictures of facial features.''

If that is the case, then "his client" is most likely on crack. Photographs were invented more than 1,000 years after the Koran was written.

For those who say that religion trumps everything, how about this? My religion causes me to believe that every federal, state, county, and municipal treasury in the United States is required to give me all of its money by noon Pacific time.

You wouldn't dare let the gubmint violate my "religious" rights, correct?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Since when is the state of Florida "Congress" BTW?

 

[Tamara]

jmbg29,

If that is the case, then "his client" is most likely on crack. Photographs were invented more than 1,000 years after the Koran was written.

FWIW, representations of people, animals, plants, and other created things are taken to be "graven images" under some of the stricter interpretations of the Koran. This is why so much art in Islamic territories from back in the day is geometric or abstract patterns.

Christianity went through this at times in the past, too. It was called iconoclasm.

 

[cuchulainn]

For those who say that religion trumps everything, how about this?

This is called missing the point.

No one said religion trumps everything. There are laws against human sacrifices and those laws probably violate some American's religious beliefs.

But the "No human sacrifice" laws are acceptible because they are actual public safety laws so vital that it is legitimate to exempt the laws from following the First Amendment.

Now, what is the argment for exempting DL photos from the First Amendment? What is the issue so vital that it supercedes the proscription of civil laws that stop free exercise of religion?

Got it?

A) The state must justify violating the First Amendment

B) The bar must be VERY HIGH -- you can't murder people based on religious freedom.

If that is the case, then "his client" is most likely on crack. Photographs were invented more than 1,000 years after the Koran was written.

Perhaps (I don't know), the Koran speaks of not making "images" of women. That would apply no matter the technology, I assume.

(Kind of like the 1A applies to the internet despite the internet not being invented until 200+ years later )

 

[cuchulainn]

Since when is the state of Florida "Congress" BTW?

Since the 1860s when the 14th Amendment was ratified. You understand encorporation, yes? Jim March can give you a really good lesson on how it is vital to your RKBA.

 

[Delmar]

cuchulainn

Ever put on a burkha?

 

[cuchulainn]

No burkhas, but I have driven a truck where my rear vision was absolutely non existent without side mirrors and my vision left and right were severely restricted and required the side mirrors. I did this without any special training or licensing (rental).

A burkha restricts vision no more severely.

But that changes the subject to whether she should have a license at all. The subject is whether she must get get a photo -- presumably she and her vehicle satisfy state-mandated safety requirements.

And guess what, I had a photo license in my pocket at the time. Somehow, it didn't improve my view of the road.

 

[longeyes]

The woman's right to practice her religion is not being abridged. Her privilege to drive is, justifiably.

Sometimes I agree with the ACLU, sometimes I don't. Increasingly I don't.

This is not about having a "single society" it is about having a society, period. People in society agree to play by certain rules that affect all. We seem to have some people who can't play with others. They should form their own societies--and stay off the road.