Women of Cover

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 29, 2003, 7:00 pm

You mean just like they don't allow those under 16 to get a drivers license?

Dork.

Drive through.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » May 30, 2003, 3:44 pm

Well to be able to drive a vehicle DOES demand you make a certain amount: enough to cover the cost of the vehicle(or rental), and the associated fuel, insurance and any other related costs.

Actually that is the requisite to own a car not to drive one. The argument I was making was that if constitutional rights can not be applied to receiving a driver’s license then any requirements could be placed. Which means that the people in charge of the department can put any requirement they wish to, since none of our constitutional rights would be respected or applicable.

Why the hell SHOULD the "right" to drive be protected by your constitution? She has the right to buy an airplane ticket, a bus ticket, take a taxi, walk or ride a bicycle/donkey/horse/other non-motorized mode of transportation. Not being allowed the priviledge of driving does not infringe upon any rights: it infringes perhaps upon convenience. By YOUR "logic" suspending the licenses of people convicted of drunk driving, dangerous driving or other vehicular offenses would have to be unconstitutional? Shoot yourself with the firearm you have the right to bear: you're too stupid to live.

Again I never said that the right to drive should be protected under the constitution, however, if it is not then none of our constitutional rights can apply to the requirements behind receiving a license. In which case the people in the transportation department could discriminate against anyone because as someone in a previous post said it is not protected under the constitution.

Please explain to me how my logic that the requirements placed on receiving a driver's license follow the rights set by the constitution apply to drunk drivers and people who commit vehicular offenses? People who commit felonies can not own a license to own a fire arm, which is a right protected under the constitution.

You mean just like they don't allow those under 16 to get a drivers license?

Dork.

Drive through.

Hmm well let’s see since many constitutional rights are denied to people under a certain age I don't see how this has anything to do with this particular discussion. Please if you’re going to post something off topic please make it entertaining or at least witty.

I think Lalanae's quote from the link best sums up the situation.

Fallanthas · Post by **Fallanthas** » May 30, 2003, 4:18 pm

Oh, you want to continue? Ok.

You cannot obtain a drivers license if you are below a certain threshold in eyesight clarity.

You cannot drive if you suffer from many medical conditions.

You cannot drive if you can not display driving competency.

You cannot drive if you cannot provide documentation proving you are a legal U.S. citizen.

The ruling does not say "Those with veils cannot be given drivers licenses". That would be infringing on religion.

By using the term fullface the law says you cannot obscure your identity in the photograph. This is not discriminatory, as it does not point to any specific type of covering. Go try to get your photograph taken for your drivers license with your sunglasses on.

Driving is not a right, it is a priviledge and is subject to restrictions because of that. This is no different from requirements to obtain any of half a hundred professional licenses, none of which are going to allow you to HIDE YOUR FUCKING FACE WHEN YOU GET YOUR PICTURE TAKEN!!!!

Get it?