Replies

...the state also says driving is a privilege, not a right.

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.

In other words, it can be contended that while the state can refuse to issue someone a license, it cannot then forbid him or her to drive.

Any Freeper lawyers care to comment?

"In other words, it can be contended that while the state can refuse to issue someone a license, it cannot then forbid him or her to drive."

I'm not a lawyer, but the state can forbid minors, alchoholics, and the accident prone from driving by not issuing or revoking their license. I don't see how her rights to attend her mosque trump our rights to safety and equal treatment.

Her adoption of islamist stricture seems incomplete: she wears the burka but wants to drive. Saudi women wear the burka (or whatever they call that thing) and are forbidden to drive. Let her husband drive her around, or if she doesn't have one, let her father pick one out for her. She's like most western converts to exotic religions, picking some strictures to observe, while rejecting others. Religion a la carte.

In other words, it can be contended that while the state can refuse to issue someone a license, it cannot then forbid him or her to drive.

If the "driving" takes place on a public road, it can.
The person's Freedom of Assembly is not threatened.
Public transportation and taxicabs are available, as well as the person's own two feet.

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.

Public roads complicate this. I agree that "mobility" is a right, but when Americans excepted the notion that roads are publically owned, we gave the "public" the power to set any and all rules.

Because vehicles are high-valued items which become the targets of criminal actions, we have given the State the power to punish criminal acts which involve vehicles(which, in essence, are crimes against the individual who owns the vehicle). This is why we allow for "registering" of vehicles. Motorists are (supposed to be) innocent until proven guilty. You are asked by police, while on roads, to produce identification only after you have been stopped for suposedly violating some ordinance or law. At this point, given that we have given the government the power to protect us against theft of cars, it is my opinion that it is no violation of rights to "prove" who you are.

This is why no one can be allowed to cover their face on a driver's license.

P.S. You do not need a license to own a car, and can drive on private property all you want without one.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think you are carrying this to an absurd extreme.

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.