4thTimeLucky

For SecretMethod:

Illinois
Breaking the law?
This is pure semantics and we shouldn't get distracted by it.
She had a legal driving licence with a photo of her wearing a veil. And she had her beliefs. All was well in the world. THEN the judge changed the law on her. She is saying that this change in law contravenes her rights under the First Ammemendment and Florida state law. Her argument is that the change in law is itself breaking the law! So we can argue all we want about what is a change in the law, what is abreaking the law and what is ammending the law. It is all beside the point. All I ask is you don't slander her by implying she is trying to break the law here. She isn't. She is just exerting her constituonal right to question the validity of both new and existing laws.

ad hominem
This brings me to my second issue. For the sake of good debate and discerning the right legal principle, we should not raise issues personal to this lady. You can call her a criminal and a bad mother and a bad Muslim all you like. It is, again, irrelevant. Yes a persons belief should be genuine for them to be granted exemptions. So, lets imagine a different person. Lets call her Jane Doe. Now Jane Doe has a genuine religious belief that her photo should never be taken - with or without a veil - but her religion lets her drive. Now, should she be forced to choose between her religion and her car?

Another option - one of several
I do not suggest that Jane Doe should carry around nine forms of ID. I suggest:
- Jane Doe be required to visit her driving licence registry office.
- She must bring four forms of quality ID: birth certificate, national insurance card, wage slips, utility bills, passport (if she has one), bank statements. These are all accepted for other government purposes and can be accepted here.
- She will give her fingerprint, which is stored on a computer database with all the other fingerprints
- She registers the details of her cars.
- In return she is given an ID card that lists her name and details along with the details of her cars.
- In the unlikely event she is ever pulled over by the police (I know of noone who ever has been) she will show the card. They will ask to see a credit card or other form of ID (I think they do this in UK). They will check her car registration matches her ID card. They will, if they have any doubts, take her fingerprint and check it back at the station.
- Any cost for the registration process will be charged to Jane Doe in the form of a special registration fee.

Now, I ask you....
@ What terrorist in their right mind would go through this process instead of buying a fake ID?
@ What does the state lose by giving her this option? The cost is covered by Jane Doe herself and we have agreed that there is no new post 9-11 threat.
@ Would criminals use this rule to hide behind? Well, they would have to track down one of these rare Jane Does. Convince them to hand over their ID card, a credit card (or something else signifcant with their name on) and their car. Then they would have to give their fingerprint to the policeofficer who stopped them. Is any criminal in their right mind going to do this rather than use a normal fake photo ID and just drive on?
@ How many people will take up this option? Hardly any.
@ Will it benefit the people who do? Enormously. They will be allowed to drive (and remember how important that is in America) and they will be able to keep their religious beliefs.

Your other points
- This is not anarchy. It is a few Jane Does trying to lead a good religious life.
- Illinois driving ID. See above.
- Glad we agre on the 9/11 point. At least that's a start
- Devout? Again ad hominem. Jane Doe is devout. Very.
- Driving: No driving is not a protected right. But Jane Doe does have the protected right to demand that her state respects her religious beliefs, unless it can show (in Florida) "compelling government interest".
- Drawing the line: I have made my suggestion. I don't think it is asking very much. Especially when you consider what the state is asking Jane Doe to give up. Neither the Judge nor anyone here has given me a "compelling government interest" that means they cannot enact my suggestions and must force Jane Doe to give up either her car or her religious convictions.

__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless!