Reference no: EM133676806

Question

Concerned that the patchwork of state laws governing the issuance of drivers' licenses and other forms of identification were a threat to national security, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. citizens and resident aliens to obtain and carry with them at all times a national ID card, which must be produced when requested by state, local, or federal law enforcement personnel. A number of people vigorously objected to what they saw as "Big Brotherism" run amok; several began to burn their ID cards publicly, in protest. Federal law prohibits "forging, altering, or knowingly destroying or mutilating" one's ID card. When Alex O'Brien is convicted of violating this provision by burning his card in a protest against "big government," he appeals, claiming that the law is unconstitutional. Which of the following scenarios would be most helpful to his claim? Group of answer choices Neither answer is correct because O'Brien is solely engaged in conduct, which is not protected by the First Amendment. Both the destruction provision applies only to destruction or mutilation done as a means of protest and legislative history demonstrates that the purpose behind the destruction and mutilation provision was to deter those who might protest the national ID from doing so in that manner. Legislative history demonstrates that the purpose behind the destruction and mutilation provision was to deter those who might protest the national ID from doing so in that manner.