Will it require a court ruling, before the police learn that to require citizen possession a photo ID to merely appear in public, is both illegal and blatantly unconstitutional? What would be the benefit to individuals, families, and the general public, if their freedom of speech, religion, and the right to peacefully assemble were severely curtailed? One obviously must appear in 'public' to get from point A to point B. If the entirety of otherwise lawful public travel can be legally restricted to those who have a state-issued card, then naturally those who travel to do otherwise legal things without one, will become criminals overnight. Do we have a constitutional right to go buy food? To go outside and get a breath of fresh air? Well, not specifically. So... even the seemingly nebulous Ninth Amendment, clearly comes into play here. What should law enforcement do? Back off and quit it, or there may ultimately be an adverse - and far more restrictive - Supreme Court ruling.
Answer
I assume you are talking about drivers licenses. You don't need a license "merely appear in public", but you do need one to drive a car. The various activities you describe are all possible without driving and can be done without a license.
The state has a legitimate interest in making sure everyone who drives a car is able to do so safely. That is why only licensed drivers are allowed behind the wheel. Since driving is a privilege and not a right, requiring a license is neither illegal nor unconstitutional as you claim.
There are many ways to get around without driving. You can walk, ride a bicycle, go on horseback or be a passenger in someone else's vehicle. You would not need a license to do any of these things. But if you want to put others' lives and safety at risk by driving a car, you need to demonstrate that you can do so safely. This requirement is both legal and reasonable. You are no more entitled to drive a car without a license than to fly a plane without one.
No comments:
Post a Comment