Many laws apply differently to different people. I listed some of the cases where the difference is religious on page one. Other differences that laws recognise (and apply differently to) are: age, disability, sex, nationality, job, income, criminal record...
So it is quite clear that laws need not apply to everyone in a blanket fashion to be valid or worth anything. In fact it is the subtle nuances of laws, and not their crude 'one size fits all' nature, that can make them effective.
Yes this case was in the US. My point is that the UK has been fighting a terrorist 'war' on its soil for many, many years. We have had Prime Ministers nearly assassinated and our cities bombed. Yet we have never needed to resort to photos on driving licences - there is simply no point to them. Anyone can sit a driving test, pass and get an ID. Sticking a photo on it doesn't cause any more bother to a terrorist, who after all is just an ordinary person but with an evil intent in their mind. What does the photo really help achieve? It makes sure you know that this piece of paper belongs to this person and that they have passed a 40 minute road skills test. Wow!
My other point is that the UK experience (no photos) is matched by 14 US states, so it isn't as if the concept is alien to the USA. Those states have presumably been getting along just fine, as the UK has.
Quote:
|
"we need the face. That just how it works."
|
That just begs the question.
It is also factually untrue. It is just how it works in some places, but not others.
You make it sound like it has been some fundamental principle of government for all time that driving licences must have photos on them! "Thats just the way it is son. God made it that way. Don't ask questions"!