Bree

From MSN.com...

Kinross

It would only be unconstitutional if the state refused to allow a pro-choice plate while allowing a pro-life plate.

For specialty plates the organization requeting the plate needs X number of signatures and pay a fee for the plate. Then members of the organization can purchase the plate with a speciality plate fee.

The states actually makes money on the operation, so no tax dollars are funding the plate. The plate then becomes a freedom of speech issue. As long as the state allows any group to request a plate it then passes the constitutionality test.

Melkor

Yup yup. And like the whole "if we allow the 10 Commandments to be nailed on courthouse walls we should also allow the tenets of ANY religion requested by ANYONE to be nailed up alongside it" line of thought, the far easier choice would be to simply eliminate these kinds of things entirely and tell people that if they want to send a message of that sort to just go out and buy a damned bumper sticker.

Because if you allow one, you have to allow them all, and that rather goes beyond the scope of the role that license plates are supposed to be playing in the grand scheme of things. They aren't intended to be bearers of political messages. They are intended to enable law enforcement and other drivers to identify individual vehicles.

Things can and will get really ridiculous, really fast if we start allowing any and everything to be put on plates as far as political messages go.

Bumper stickers are a far better alternative, IMO.

Kinross

The question was if it was unconstitutional, not if its a good idea.

Melkor

I was agreeing with you, and expanding the argument a bit. It's all good.

notMichaelJackson

Remember that not all "pro-lifers" are Christians. There are some atheists who fit into this category.

Manta

Florida already has one. I also think that I have seen more individual plates in Fl than anywhere else I have been.

Their plate index

(I just saw SC's H L Hunley plate this weekend - too cool)

Tom Sawyer

I think it's perfectly constitutional. Having a pro-life license plate is no different than having a pro-life bumper sticker, regardless of the government involvement aspect. Being pro-life isn't necessarily a religious position so this doesn't cross any church/state boundaries.

Feather

The difference between a license plate of this sort and posting the 10C in a courtroom is this:

The courthouse has "official capacity" regarding the execution of laws/government regulations, whereas a privately owned vehicle is just that--private.

Besides, the "choose life" message isn't necessarily a religious one.

Melkor

I was looking at it from more of a free speech perspective, as many who advocate the 10C in Courtrooms like to harp that it's a "freedom of speech" issue as much as it is a "free exercise thereof" issue, and, to a certain extent, they have a point.

However... Establishment clause aside, it would be unconstitutional to disallow other religions to post their religious tenets in a courtroom that allows the 10C.

This is analagous to the "Choose life" message on license plates. If they are going to allow that to appear on a state's license plate for people that request it, then they should allow anything that anyone else wants as well, or else it's unconstitutional.

I couldn't care less if it's religious, political, or just some sort of sappy crap someone wants to put on there... if they allow one, they must allow them all.

That's why I mentioned that I think the far simpler solution would be to just leave license plates as license plates. It is not their purpose to convey messages to others. If you want to do that, get a bumper sticker.