Trial will weigh whether Muslim must remove veil for license photo

AZCentral.com/Orlando Sentinel ^ | 6.26.02

[mhking]

ORLANDO, Fla. - A Muslim woman from Winter Park, Fla., is being "hypersensitive" because she refuses to show her full face for a drivers license picture and should be required to remove her veil for the photograph, a state attorney said in a recent court brief.

[FreeTally]

Ultimately, this means you can use the assets in the trust as long as you abide by the rules set by the holder of the allodial title.

The "rules set" are based upon the notion that the "public" owns the roadways upon which the vehicle will be driven, not that the State owns the car.

[borntodiefree]

Thank you for the admission. You just admitted the fact that these rights were there...and then somehow taken away...that is the whole freaking problem!!! What your saying is tantamount that, "Well, the Constitution, and inalienable rights don't apply like they used to. We legislated them to suit this group over here, or that mob over there."

Maybe you missed the other precept of God's law/Natural law also stated in:
Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489
The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

and

Miranda vs. Arizona, 284 US 436, 491 Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abbrogate them."

[Freebird Forever]

Holding a state-issued driver's license is a privilege controlled by the state; but driving, as an important means for implementing the First Amendment's right to peaceably assemble, is arguably a right.

The Amish have been assembling peaceably for years without driving motor vehicles.

[KSCITYBOY]

Talk about a large waste of taxpayer money. No face no license.

[DeFault User]

It's shameful that an American lawyer even consented to take her 'case'.

An American lawyer with shame???!! Surely you jest.

Remember that for lab experiments they are replacing white rats with lawyers because there are more of them and there are some things the rats won't do.

[DallasDeb]

So let a female employee of the DPS take her picture.

[Mark17]

I am sick to death of hearing about Muslims, and how they don't like the way we do things around here.

[borntodiefree]

Gobblygook is very good answer, but doesn't refute the position

In reference to the procedes, if you read what I wrote before, you getting the proceeds when selling means you have equity title. You pass the equity title on when someone buys the vehicle.

If you say the State never claims ownership, then why is it "illegal" for you to sell the vehicle and not sign over the "Certificate of Title" and then require either the buyer or the seller to get a new "Certificate of Title" from the state. Try to sell it without doing it and see who they make pay the tax, tag, and title every year. Certificate of Title is no different that a Stock Certificate or Gold Certificate. You can hold, sell, or even get a lean on the asset, but you down own and/or control that portion of the company and or piece of gold.

If you completely own something (have allodial title), then shouldn't you be able to buy and sell...whatever it is...without government intervention?

[swarthyguy]

OK I aksed for that one.

[KC_for_Freedom]

I hope they find that she must allow her face to be photographed. Can you imagine the number of terrorists who will ask to have their picture with the face covered, not to mention high schoolers who will produce a genuine ID with no facial features, each school or college only needs one ID, and all can use.

[eleni121]

This woman expects us to tolerate her religion (a religion that calls for America's destruction) under the guise of accomodation and diversity. I, for one, will not.

Add me to your list. Mohamedans (just as the Marxists)are well aware of the laws and will take full advantage to them to undermine their enemy - America. Again, "islam" is not a religion; rather it is just an ideology hell bent on the destruction of the west in the guise of religion.

[agrace]

I don't even understand why this is an issue. And it's amazing to me that ANY state has previously allowed veiled driver's license pictures. Hello. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a photo license? And isn't holding a license a priveledge anyway?

[archy]

If she wins her case does that mean that Klansmen can wear their hoods for their driver's license photos?

Don't forget us ninjas...though there may be some question as to whether that constitutes religious or professional garb. A bit of both, I'd say....

[Republicus2001]

The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

has this been tested for all the anti-gun laws recently...?

[rudypoot]

If the ACLU wins then the next time I renew my license, I will wear a ski mask (you know, the kind that only have three holes). ACLU= Anti-Constitutional Liberal Union.

[timestax]

I don't even want her driving with that thing on. She has NO peripheral vision and is a clear danger to herself and others. 16 posted on 6/27/02 11:02 AM Pacific by PoisedWoman [

DITTO !!

[Pagey]

Freeman's challenge rests on her deeply held beliefs that she should not show her face to strangers or men outside her family.

Well,I have a deeply held belief that I shouldn't have to pay as much in taxes every year, but the penalties prevent me from making that incorrect decision!She would've had an easier time pre-9/11,but now,I don't think she has a chance.But then again,I know nothing about people that reside in Florida.Are they sympathetic to foreigners who may or may not want to kill us?That's how this case should be judged IMO,not by the wording of the law.(I never thought I would type that sentence,but I think Veiled people are a clear and potential danger to my security.)I choose to profile,She can also choose not to drive.It seems rather simple to me.

[timestax]

bttt

[GregoryFul]

Who agreed to that statement? Driving is a privilege and not a right? Certainly a power to regulate driving is not granted to the federal government in the Constitution. So it is a state or people's issue. In the good old days, common transportation was by wagon or horse, I don't think those forms of transportation were regulated. Were horsemen forced to obtain licences before galloping hither and yon? Were wagoner's forced to sit for a full frontal photograph? I think not, they would have blown the frigging bureaucrat back where they belong! The "government" has become so intrusive and overbearing on all facets of pedestrian life that now (when did this happen) it demands photos (left profile, right profile, full frontal, and soon biometric) authenticated certificates to permit one to do things that are a natural right in any rational understanding of the world.

I have a right to freely move about in the contemporary mode of moving about -- I guess the founder's should have had a constitutional amendment to that effect, so that the feeble minded would get it. This nation was founded on the principle that each individual is a soverign, free from oppressive restriction by others, free to carry out his life as he sees fit. Unfortunately, ever since the founding of this country the bureaucrats have siezed the initiative in regulating every innovation that has come into this world -- from "arms" to "communication" to "transportation" to "speach". And encroach further on any new development that offers a mode of control over citizens. Why do we grant these anal retentive bureaucrats the authority to do that?

[GregoryFul]

The Amish drive wagons on public roads, much below the posted speed limits -- and I expect without licenses. They pose a grave hazzard to a motorist!