Man Battles Courts To Keep His Eyes Closed On Drivers License Photo

[matcom]

<snip>

Billy Reed just lost a 19-month battle to protect his rights, or what he believes is his right to have his eyes closed in his driver's license photo.

But Reed, 49, of Fleetwood, Berks County, said he might appeal yesterday's Commonwealth Court ruling against him to the state Supreme Court.

A three-judge panel of the Commonwealth Court rejected Reed's arguments in a published opinion, in which it found that the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's requirement that subjects keep their eyes open for the photograph is reasonable.

Reed claimed there is no law supporting PennDOT's position and that the law requires only that a person submit to a photograph. He argued that PennDOT was violating his right to freedom of expression, due process and his "right to happiness."

"Petitioner's only argument regarding his right to freedom of expression is that the Department's policy denies him this right," Judge James Gardner Colins wrote for the court. "Petitioner simply states 'PENNDOT is currently doing its darndest to upset my happiness.'

http://www.pennlive.com/news/patriotnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1110882240212771.xml

[kick-ass-bob]

1. WTF?

I was thinking it was that demons would steal something through his eyes or something - but there was no reason.

Good god man, find a real fight.

[DrGonzoLives]

2. Uhhh, why?

It's idiots like this that clog up the courts.

[wtmusic]

3. People misinterpret the Happiness Amendment all the time

back to History class! :crazy:

[CanuckAmok]

4. seriously, "God Bless America"

Name another nation in history which has so advanced the causes of the imbicilic and unjustly well-financed.

[blue neen]

5. I like this part the best:

"While the Declaration of Independence does mention "the pursuit of happiness," nowhere in the Constitution does the government guarantee a citizen the right to his own isiosyncratic vision of happiness, which in this case is having his driver's license photo taken with his eyes closed."

Ugh! My taxdollars are being spent on this!

Maybe he doesn't like his eye color? :shrug:

[fob]

6. Good. The State should be challenged at every step, it's already

too easy for the State to take rights away. If the law requires only that a person "submit to a photograph" then the State should have to go through the process of changing the law if they expect the citizentry to submit to a stricter set of rules.

Don't you wish at LEAST this much thought and effort was put into fighting the un-Patriot Act? It's a small price to pay, IMO.

[Trillo]

7. If there isn't a law on the books to keep one's eyes open,

then should an Executive Branch department make such a rule to be enforced as law?

I often think that 'little guy cases' such as this point to much bigger problems in our country, but when they're brought some
people think they're frivolous; justice is rarely done in these cases, 'the right' attorneys didn't bring them in 'the right' courts, under 'the right' circumstances. When do little people ever get justice?

Wouldn't justice be to enforce the laws 'on the books', passed and agreed upon by legislators, who in turn were voted into office through honest elections?

[BurtWorm]

8. Makes you wonder what he has to hide.

[Blue-Jay]

9. Why not a photo of his ass?

Surely, since they're arguing that the only requirement is a photograph submission, then the logical extension is that it can be a photo of any body part.

In other words, this guy needs a good stompin'.

[DS1]

10. Should've pulled a "Lenny" from the Simpsons...

AHHHH! My doctor said I'm not supposed to get LIGHT in my eye!