... It takes 300 members to apply and pay the extra $10 to $30 fee.
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.
RESPECT LIFE
KILL BABIES NOW
SAVE THE MANATEES
SLAUGHTER THE MANATEES
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
DESTROY PUBLIC LANDS
... It takes 300 members to apply and pay the extra $10 to $30 fee.
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.
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?
Dear judge,
“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.
Doesn’t NC fund abortions for “the poor” at the state level? Doesn’t it have a high abortion rate, like CA, NY, FL, or TX?
First, I think it is a mistake for conservatives to support ANY messages on license plates. Even if the state charges extra, this is an unnecessary intrusion of government into our free speech.
It leads to fights like this, because everybody wants the government stamp of approval on their message. And I can guarantee you that before we are through, the government will be approving a LOT MORE messages we find offensive than the other way around.
A license plate should be a license plate. Vanity plates should be about the letters on the plate, not messages printed on it.
If you want a message around your plate, get a plate frame or a bumper sticker. Problem solved.
For this particular issue, Virginia already has a “choose life” plate, and in Virginia, money raised from selling special plates goes in part to the sponsoring organizations, which again entangles government in private business. But we successfully defended our plates, although there was a planned parenthood version which sold so terribly badly. In that case, I think the legislature tried to re-assign the “profits” from the planned parenthood version to a crisis pregnancy center group.
All of which was political drama that could be avoided if we stripped down governments’ reach, and didn’t let them print special license plates.
“Viewpoint discrimination”
Isn’t that what conservative students and potential faculty experience at publicly funded universities?
You can go to any trophy shop or awards engraver & get license plate HOLDERS that can have anything you want put onto the insert bar.
We have used such items for years as awards for completion of endurance rides. I have one that says TOP TEN on the top mar and FIRE MOUNTAIN 50 on the bottom bar.
Since he wants equal time, how about “Choose Abortion”?
Same wording, opposite message.
NC should defy the ruling on the grounds of ‘states rights’.