Skip to comments.Judge finds NC ‘Choose Life’ plates unconstitutional
Posted on 12/10/2012 8:40:42 AM PST by Clint N. SuhksEdited on 12/10/2012 8:46:47 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
RALEIGH, N.C. – A federal judge has ruled it is unconstitutional for North Carolina to issue pro-life license plates unless the state offers similar plates supporting abortion rights.
U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox ruled on Friday that North Carolina cannot produce or distribute the “Choose Life” plate.
(Excerpt) Read more at myfox8.com ...
Fine, let ‘em print up plates saying “Choose Death” for the abortionists, problem solved!
Create a plate that says "Choose Death".
Simple solution, create a license with the words “choose death” for those that support abortion.
Viewpoint discrimination? WTF? I have heard it all now!
Personally, I don’t like the message license plates at all. A plate is supposed to identify the registration info of a vehicle. That’s it.
"Choose Death" is a fine slogan. Truth in advertising, as well.
I agree, they smack of “Idiocracy.”
So get a “Choose Life” bumper sticker. The ACLU is evil. Funny how they are all about free speech except when it comes to what they don’t agree with.
Any takers brave enough to stand by their liberal dogma and drive around with that tag when they go about their enlightened lives?
By default, choosing life is a choice, therefore the plates already represent a Pro Choice viewpoint.
To oppose the Choose Life viewpoint, it would be necessary to print the Choose Death license plates. As others have already pointed out.
Yeah clearly legislating from the bench. My old Illinois “Land Of Lincoln” plate was viewpoint discrimination and should now be Land Of 0bama....
So if that is the case, should’nt there be “Brady Bill” Plates in opposition to NRA plates. Or Code Pink in opposition to “Support our Troops.” I would say the sate should but out a pro-choice plate so those in favor of baby killing can be identified.
Wonder how Judge Fox would react if a prospective juror told him he could not in good conscience serve in a Federal court. It was the Federal courts after all that legalized abortion on demand and made possible the carnage of forty million intentionally killed human lives. The thought of the Federal court’s atrocity would overwhelm the potential jurors ability to serve conscientiously. Also wonder what the good Judge Fox would sat to a future inductee who would refuse as a matter of conscience to take an oath to “uphold and defend” a constitution that has been interpreted to allow this slaughter and has not been amended to guarantee life. Just wondering.
“Choose Death” is not the opposite of “Choose Life”.
Instead “Death Without Choice” is the opposite of “Choose Life”
(Might not fit on a license plate though.)
(...and when was it an obligation of law for the state to create and fund both sides of every binary policy choice? and who says that every opinion or viewpoint comes with merely two, binary, options?)
I've never really understood the state sponsored advocacy plates. I could buy a advocacy license plate frame for less than the single year extra cost for the plate (assuming other states are like Ohio) and if I felt like it send that difference to someone actually doing something rather than the state (which nabs $10 of the annual fee for itself before passing the remainder on).
For example, the Ohio Choose Life plate costs $30 per year more than a regular plate. According to the site, "$20.00 of the total plate cost will go towards funding eligible private, nonprofit organizations that provide services committed to counseling pregnant women about the option of adoption."
Nominated by Jesse Helms and confirmed by Ronald Reagan. And had a military career earlier.
I guess they’re ALL nuts these days.
There’s no such thing as “viewpoint discrimination”. This is nonsense. IF the state had a plate that said “Don’t Steal” would they have to also have one respecting somebody’s opinion that “stealilng is a right”? This is crazy to think that a state has a duty to accomodate every single possible “viewpoint”, and impossible effectuate if carried to its logical extreme.
I don’t understand the basis for his ruling. If you don’t have an opposing viewpoint then your viewpoint is deemed unconstitutional?
How about.....Kill a Baby today!!
How about “Don’t Choose Death”?
And you are paying them for their services. ACLU is primarily tax funded in that if and when they, or others, bring a lawsuit regarding individula rights and they win, the Feds pays for all billed costs. Thatis why they ACLU is always on the hunt for winnable cases that will be brought before their friend is the federal courts.
I find nothing unconstitutionla about it. It’s a free speech issue. Because it’s a government issued plate?? So what....it’s person specific and bought and paid for.
Use bumper stickers....lots of them....The state and the courts can go to hell.
“Save the Manatees”, “Protect Wildlife”, “Kill the Babies”.
What a country!
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Does this so-called judge not realize that "LIFE" is the very reason why there is a first amendment? The amendments were laid down to support the Bill of Rights, most notably the need to protect LIFE. Yes, and that is also why the second amendment was established.
Maybe the judge did not notice that the amendment he cited says: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
State’s rights too.
Sometimes it seems like it’s really a toss up whether these judges are politically biased or just stupid. Beck does these low brow shows where he calls quick stop markets to ask them simple questions and mock the poor clerks’ ignorance. Maybe he should be calling Federal judges.
ACLU is evil. Now there is a license plate message.
We the people understand instinctively that society has a compelling interest in protecting life. One only has to look at an elderly person and then look at an infant, and the connection becomes painfully obvious. Without infants, there can be no elderly.
KILL BABIES NOW
SAVE THE MANATEES
SLAUGHTER THE MANATEES
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
DESTROY PUBLIC LANDS
Personally, I dont like the message license plates at all. A plate is supposed to identify the registration info of a vehicle. Thats it.
That would be true if a vehicle was primarily an object to haul people and things.
I like it!
... It takes 300 members to apply and pay the extra $10 to $30 fee.
Guy’s probably feeling guilty for all the abortions he paid for.
yes we have wildlife advocacy plates in this State. So to be fair we also must have a Destroy Wildlife plate as well according to this Loony logic.
The judge read the "Congress" part to fluff it off as not applying whatsoever to the Judiciary. Of course, making "law" from the bench is fine.
The plate doesnt say “Ban Abortion” it says “Choose Life” which means people get to choose.
Do they now have to get rid of all the sports-team plates, because they “discriminate” by not offering a plate for every professional and college team in the nation? Or anti-specific-team plates?
For instance, you can get a Duke University plate, but you can’t get a “I hate Duke!” plate. You have to choose a single other team to affirm, and that hardly conveys your anti-Duke message.
“NC Special Plate guidelines:
... It takes 300 members to apply and pay the extra $10 to $30 fee.”
I seriously doubt the left could get 300 people to apply for a “choose death” license plate.
As of December 2010, Choose Life license plates are available in 27 states:
States where Choose Life is working for approval
According to Choose Life, Inc., they are working in 15 states to get the sale of the plates approved:
In fact, note that john Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of 14A, had officially clarified that 14A applies only constitutionally enumerated personal rights to the states.
"Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution." --John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1871. (See bottom half of third column.)So Roe v. Wade is arguably an example of the Supreme Court ignoring the unique, Article V power of the states to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution just like Congress and the Oval Office regularly ignore the will of the Article V majority.
So if you have a plate that condemns bullying, do you have to create a plate that commends bullying?
“viewpoint discrimination” is NOT protected in the Constitution.
“LIFE”, however, IS protected in the Constitution!
So, which “Viewpoint” did you believe you were authorized to protect?
Just another great opportunity to overturn this stupidity in a higher court.
I feel so sorry for the kids today. My grandchildren have to put up with the government “indoctrination”. Disgusting !
It's called legislating from the bench. And corrupt judges get away with it because citizens are not being taught the difference between legislative and judicial powers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.