Teacher refuses to get fingerprinted because it's the "Mark of the Beast"

A 22-year veteran kindergarten teacher in the Texas Bible Belt could lose her job for refusing, on religious grounds, to give fingerprints under a state law requiring them.

The evangelical Christian, Pam McLaurin, is fighting a looming suspension, claiming that fingerprinting amounts to the “Mark of the Beast,” and hence is a violation of her First Amendment right to practice her religion. Her case is similar to a lawsuit by a group of Michigan farmers, some of them Amish, challenging rules requiring the tagging of livestock with RFID chips, saying the devices are also the devil’s mark.

The latest case is the first in which a teacher is refusing fingerprinting on religious grounds, the woman’s lawyer said. The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the First Amendment is implicated in fingerprinting, especially at a time when states, local governments and civic organizations are increasingly making them mandatory for anyone wanting to drive a car or coach a youth basketball team.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/mark-of-the-be...

All them swirls sure look like 6's to them biblebeaters!

I really think the Bible didn't have anything to say about fingerprints.

Really.

"Thou shalt not permit thy distal phalanges to be coated with soot and pressed upon papyrus scrolls controlled by the Pharaoh"

Theologians disagree as to whether this clear prohibition would extend to digital fingerprint recording, but the majority would deem any digitally copied digits sinful.

People like this give me the creeps.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't take a lot of brain cells to teach 4-5 year olds.

It is true that the content is simple, HOWEVER the techniques, behavior management, assessment skills, knowledge of child development benchmarks can be quite challenging. I taught pre-school for 17 years and found that many people think teaching higher grades means a person is somehow smarter. I would like to see a high school history teacher or a college english lit prof get through a day with 24 4-5 year olds. sheesh!

and there's no way, no freaking way in the world, I could teach the lower grades. Elementary teachers are the crowning jewels of our profession and get precious little appreciation for the job they do. They make my job look easy.

He claimed his research proved that the lower the grade the more competent the teacher.

I think I'm competent in my subject area and with my classes but there is no way I could handle the squirming energy of the really young kids. Then there's the booger factor -- by HS they've learned to use Kleenex.

I'll stick with elementary kids. They are still shorter than me and generally don't argue when I give directions. LOL

I concur. I suspect this is also why I have no kids.

What do you do for a living so that we can make condescending and flippant remarks about it?

Prepare for the onslaught.

And take it like a trooper.

Kindergarten teachers are probably the most capable and the least recognized talents in the teaching profession.

Want to spend 8 hours a day with 5 year olds? I've taught elementary school for 30 years and I would quit before I would teach kindergarten.

You better good and well have the smarts, as well as the ENERGY, not to mention the disease immunity, to work with little kids.

You obviously have never spent time in a K classroom, or you wouldn't make such a blanket statement.

Under your own assumption, I guess you're qualified to teach that age, then....

Teaching 4-5 years olds is one hard job. What a terrible thing to say. It takes a lot more than brain cells. It also takes an enormous amount of patience.

She NOW decides they are the mark of the beast.

eom

Some love to be 'persecuted' for a payoff.

Impossible! Of course she's hiding something. There is no sect of Christianity whose teachings include ink is the mark of the beast. That's her own completely made up bullshit. What, she never once used a ball point pen in the last 22 years? She never got any on her hand before? Please.

"Her attorney, Scott Skelton, said his client believes that the computerized fingerprinting, in which her fingerprints will be stored in a database, is the mark addressed in Revelation."

So she's afraid of the technology. I wouldn't want her teaching kids in my district, that is for sure.

I'm sure in her 22 years of teaching she's used a computer once or twice. If digital fingerprints are the sign of the beast, then so is every other digital image. I still call bullshit and bet she's hiding something other than a sudden terror of technology.

That is revealing.

matched to something in the existing fingerprint data.
Maybe she has a criminal past?

mark

I have not use for fanatics like that.

And I'm very rarely wrong.

How would you be reacting if she refused forced drug tests?

How about if she had to open her house to inspection to make sure she's an upstanding role model for the children?

How about an AIDS test?

check?

Everyone should be fingerprinted! No exceptions. Anyone could be a child molester, so with universal fingerprinting you'd catch some of them, guaranteed.

There should be a camera on every corner! And at every door. All of them should feed into one central system with facial recognition software that tracks everyone's movements based on their photos in a central database. That way, every time a crime is committed, the computer itself will be first to recognize the perp and alert the cops.

submit to background checks or not get a job.

Want a government job? You need clearance.

Want to work with kids? You need to have a background check.

Quit inserting idiotic strawman arguments.

Nobody ever said that everyone should be fingerprinted.

I had to get a background check to be a Girl Scout parent volunteer. He may actually be on to something and it got me thinking. Check out the similarities here...

Or Godwin's "law," which states that as a thread proceeds the probability of someone comparing an argument to the Nazis rises to 1, whereupon (according to some magic "moderate" logic) whoever mentioned them loses.

Corollary:

If someone doesn't invoke a comparison to the Nazis, you can always sarcastically pretend they did and act like you won the argument anyway.

If you can't recognize that, you really need to put down the bong and quit reading Prison Planet.

Carry on!

Here's a hint for you - I don't give a fuck if your conservative, liberal, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, atheist, or paranoid schizophrenic, if you want to work in a job with children that requires you to be fingerprinted and you refuse to be fingeprinted, you don't get the job, it's that simple.

You can take your assumptions about it being based on religion and shove them in the same place you pulled them from.

Looked more like a silly rant.

They're BROWNSHIRTS!!!!

It's been that way for quite some time. I've yet to have any fear of being struck down by God or rounded up by the government because I had my fingerprints taken by the FBI. Twice. Not even during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Sadly it seems, most here ARE the cheering section for the Total Police State. And when someone demands that THEY submit to one test or another, and it WLL happen, they will be the first to complain. To family and friends of course, not to the authorities.

But why stop at fingerprinting? We demand breathalyzers, pot tests, drug tests, DNA samples, medical histories, criminal histories, DMV records, HS and College transcripts. Check their computers for illegally downloaded music, check their Facebook accounts (don't have one? Why?), and Google their names and all aliases to see if they ever posted something objectionable on the internet.

I suspect these are reasonable people! If they are confronted with reasonable precautions that may. after. all. save! lives! -- possibly of CHILDREN!!! -- why should they not assent, and make the world a safer place?

I mean, have a LOOK at this lady who was teaching kindergarden for 22 years and now doesn't want to submit to fingerprinting -- she thinks it's the "mark of the beast"! Ha ha ha! WE'RE not like that! We're smart secularists. We calmly extend our arms for the legitimate authorities to do unto us whatever is best for us.

You see, if her reasoning for asserting her right against search and seizure without cause involves crackpot religious ideas, rather than a logically argued legal brief worthy of the ACLU, then surely she should be deprived of that right (or her job) forthwith.

And why should we not also throw in insinuations that this irrational attachment to her rights might have additional hidden motives, like that she's a possible CHILD MOLESTER! OMG!

She's a fundamentalist, therefore fair game.

Perceived social deviants of all persuasions: fair game.

Potential posers of any danger the authorities (or fearful voters) invoke: fair game. Regardless of whether there is citable cause to justify a search attaching to a given individual: fair game. Statistics showing you'll surely catch someone are justification enough.

You: fair game. What, are you a child molester?!

If you join the military, you get fingerprinted.

If you apply for any government job, you can be fingerprinted.

If you want to work at your local hardware store, probably not.

I don't give a rats ass how long you've been teaching, that is irrelevant completely.

If a policy is put in place that requires it for ALL teachers, then you let them fingerprint you. If you want to switch jobs to a district that requires it, you get fingerprinted.

God, I hope you never have to transfer property in California, you'd have a fucking coronary. You have to leave your thumbrint with the Notary Public for all real property transfers . . . boy, you'd never own a fucking house in California now would you.

That has exactly squat to do with the fourth amendment.

You probably believe that black helicopters follow you everywhere too don't you?

No, actually, I believe aerial vehicles of many colors paid for by your tax dollars are killing hundreds of people around the world basically at random on an often weekly basis, and that the day when this also happens in the United States may come in part because of the complacency of people making arguments like yours.

You've been reading one too many dystopian sci-fi novels.

Your nonsense spouting is the EXACT equivalent of the teabaggers saying that healthcare reform is the equivalent of the holocaust.

It's a load of crap and you know it.

Despite thinking this lady is a nutter.

also to cash a check,so that women better get used to it!

Is the car rental agency also the government in your parts?

Sorry. Your complete lack of concern for the safety of children is duly noted.

Fake ID? Second identity?

Both are illegal. She'll get fired for using a different name. She can also be tracked through her SS number.

This has nothing to do with my own feelings about the safety of children.

Try again.

Hmmmmm?

If it makes it to SCOTUS. They will apply strict scrutiny. That will Compel the government to prove a compelling interest and least intrusive means. There are other ways of identifying her.

I wouldn't care if teachers had to submit stool samples and undergo psychological testing.

And teachers who really care about kids and gaining the trust of their parents probably wouldn't mind either.

On the grand scale of things, fingerprinting is not that big a deal compared with what a lot of parents would love to see from the people with whom their kids are spending a lot of time.

May be relatively new for teachers in Texas but not a ground breaking requirement.

and in the health & safety professions, or are you just against fingerprint checks?

How do states effectively conduct criminal background checks without fingerprints? Or is any investigation to see if there is any relevant criminal history for someone to be licensed in such a profession also an intrusion of privacy?

They can check her records if they wish. The idea that anyone might be a fugitive hiding under a false identity and everyone therefore should be subject to search at the state's whim creates a standard other than "cause." Unrestricted state power is a danger to children and everyone else, too, which is why these rights were once demanded by the people and guaranteed in the Constitution. She has a right to refuse the search, especially when it is first expected after she's worked there 22 years. She has a right not to have her fingerprints permanently on file, something that a) can't be guaranteed with electronic means; b) isn't being offered.

oh look, it's the mark of the Beast right here!

You'd think fundies could at least keep THAT straight.

women who insist on wearing a burka for their driver's license photo..

increasing. All I can say is send him to the DMV in California. They'll get that fingerprint out of him in no time. You do not say "no" to the DMV here for any reason.

How stupid can you be and still become a teacher??

Washable ink is the mark of the devil? If it washes off is it still a mark? Would permanent ink be better? I hope she doesn't write much. When there seems to be a clustering in teachers that sexually abuse kids and fingerprints are one way the FBI background check is conducted...she has no right to teach in the environment many parents are trying to keep as safe as possible. Yup so many have siad it...she has no right to be teaching. Can you even begin to imagine the crap she is going to teach them?

Oh and by the way. Where did she ever pick up that little tid bit? I would like proof of this devil enhancing stuff.

for class pictures because Satan steals people's souls that way.

Another sick aspect of this is that every teacher is being treated like a potential child abuser.
That must do wonders for morale.
"We'd like to fingerprint you in advance, before you start beating and raping your students."
It's really twisted.

Let's demand that all people with income under $15K be fingerprinted too.
Make a police file on them now, before they start stealing!

An adult being fingerprinted is nothing compared to the pain and suffering a child goes through the rest of his or her life after he or she has been molested.

It never stops. My daughter, more than 30 years later, still suffers from the effects of having been molested by a trusted person so many years ago.

I've had to see her pain and struggles through the years, and I know she still suffers.

Do I give a shit whether a grown adult might be a tad pissed off...or his or her feelings hurt...because of having to be fingerprinted before being able to work with children?

Fine... she doesn't have to be fingerprinted. But she also doesn't have to work in a place where people are asked to do it. Like someone else downthread said....there's always McDonald's.

requirement for teachers and various professions in the US. New York state, for example, requires teachers to be fingerprinted.

If she has taught for 22 years, there is 22 years of evaluations and other data proving her competence or lack of competence. If her employer or her state is concerned about any criminal activity, a background check can be conducted without fingerprints.

Her objection is perfectly reasonable, IMO. But, as I said, I find her reasoning a bit strange.

Because her rights against search without cause are also everyone else's rights.

Truly amazing.

the wacky beliefs just make her reasoning seem odd. She is not being picked on solely because of her beliefs. ANYONE who would want to bypass the fingerprinting/background check process would be welcome to find a job elsewhere where no beasty or assumed privacy issues would be crossed.

As for 22 years of past service should be a reason to NOT require fingerprinting.....so if someone was clean 22 years ago, across state lines they are guaranteed to be clean now? Oh really! And this is assuming 22 years ago a complete and thorough background checks were conducted. Here teachers are required to have them repeated on a regular basis. What a misdirected ideological sentiment.

as pointed out....false id is not so hard to find. FWIW, fingerprintes lifted from a crime scene...can suddenly be matched. Your assumption is still bad.

http://news.webindia123.com/news/ar_showdetails.asp?id=...

..which is pretty sad if you think about it.

She is arguing that her religious rights are being violated, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does offer some protection against religious discrimination on behalf of an employer. At some point, that argument has to pass a reasonableness test and hers doesn't stand a chance. Still at least she has some basis in the law itself (however misguided).

You keep pretending the 4th amendment applies when it doesn't. The 4th amendment applies to what the government can and can't legally demand in relation to search and seizure. It doesn't apply to an employer (and no it doesn't matter if she works for the government). Nobody is holding a gun to her head and demanding she surrender her fingerprint data. She can refuse all she wants. She just can't refuse AND keep her job.

The same holds true for every other amendment found in the bill of rights. Try publicly badmouthing your employer and see how far the 1st amendment gets you when they can your ass.

The Bill of Rights applies to states as well as the federal government.

She is suing the Texas Education Agency - which is not only (indirectly) her employer, but her government. Your argument above is predicated on the false premise that her government ceases to be government when you class it as an "employer."

She has the support of the schoolboard and her community with regard to her case on First Amendment grounds. So for those who have only read the above excerpt, please at least read her own argument on First Amendment grounds (from the Wired article). It addresses some of the points people here are making, such as whether a background check is possible without fingerprinting.

Her objection relates specifically to the electronic storage of the thumbpring image, which, let's face it, means it's on file forever.

The religious argument is highly problematic, as that might enshrine Revelations as valid "case law" to cite for others who share her religion. But the 4th Amendment relates to the exact same aspect: This is not an "employer check"; it is a permanent filing of her fingerprint in the already integrated government datastream.

This is not true, but I made no claims to the contrary in my previous post so it's anyone's guess why you chose to offer this thought.




I made no such claim. What I'm claiming is her employer doesn't cease to be her employer when she works for the government. It's a not so subtle difference which you seem to be incapable of grasping. As her employer (whether it's the government or not) they have certain rights also and part of those rights include placing conditions on her employment. Any claim she makes to rights under the Constitution must be balanced with the employer's rights. So while the government might not be able to kick in your door and fingerprint you for no good reason, they damn sure can and do require some employees to submit fingerprints as a condition of employment in a variety of government jobs just like civilian employers do. If you don't like it, you're free to refuse and stand outside the door and piss and moan about the 4th amendment all you want, just so long as it's outside the door.

I don't really give two shits about her 1st amendment argument. It doesn't even come close to passing the balance test and she only stands doing a little better under the Civil Rights Act which still fails the reasonableness test. Even still it comes a damn site closer than your 4th amendment argument which doesn't even pass the sniff test.

If you think "this is not true," that ignorance goes a long way to explaining why you're willing to allow states to trample rights. But it's simply untrue.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment made explicit that the Bill of Rights and other individual rights and liberties specified in the Constitution limit the states as well as the federal government.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's already dangerous when well-informed persons like yourself don't know that.

As for the rest, all employers should also be subject to limits, among other things in the manufacture of new demands on their employees, which are often abused. That's why the TEA is not an absolute power, there are other institutions like the school board. She has been working the job for 22 years and has their support in refusing the search.

The reason I didn't elaborate before is because this discussion is tangential since the 1st and 4th amendments have been fully incorporated. Apparently you have no such compunction about tangential discussions. But since you've decided to ignorantly accuse me of ignorance, I'm going to correct your fuck up. The Bill of Rights doesn't not universally apply to the states. Those rights must be incorporated. The 14th amendment did NOT automatically do this and in fact, most of them weren't incorporated until some 100 years AFTER the 14th amendment was ratified.

I could point to a number of USSC decisions that prove this, but it's much easier for you to just google the subject and better educate yourself.
http://www.google.com/search?q=bill+of+rights+incorpora...

I guess I'm a bit more "well-informed" than you ever imagined, eh? And no I'm most certainly not going to even entertain any half-fast argument to the contrary on this subject. I'm quite sure I'm 100% right on this and you are 100% wrong. You can either admit it or not. I really don't care which. It's your burden of ignorance.

You may now apologize, assuming you have the character to do so.



Small town Texas school boards(and even many of the larger towns) are generally composed of a high percentage of zealots and other various dipshits. It doesn't surprise me that they support this batshit crazy woman, but since their opinions matter about as much as yours (or mine for that matter) this is all irrelevant. The state school board is not budging, and since they recently found dozens of sex offenders working in public schools and at least one that got by the previous screening process, it's not likely they ever will.

Your post says it is. Whether or not it took 100 years in some cases for courts to determine and clarify that (largely on the basis of the 14th Amendment), it still means that your prior post (claiming that the Bill of Rights does not apply to states!) was not only wrong, but in conflict with your current post (admitting that incorporation of those rights as applying to states is now established).

So what is your point on this question?! Are you complaining that I didn't review 100 years of judicial decisions that established what I said in the first place - that the Bill of Rights applies to the states - an assertion with which you now seem to agree?

My post says no such thing. I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth and then building your strawman on that basis.

Some amendments are fully incorporated. Some aren't incorporated at all. Some are partially incorporated. So the assertion that "The Bill of Rights applies to states" isn't true. It wasn't true the day after the 14th amendment was ratified, it certainly wasn't even close to being true 50 years ago, and it still isn't true today. As I said, you can educate yourself or not. Your choice. I even generously gave you all the tools you need to do so. I'm only trying to help keep you from embarrassing yourself again.

The point of this "question" is that you have decided to go on some tangent and wrongly accuse me of ignorance in a half page rant. So either you can back up your allegations, or you can't. In this case, you most certainly can't. So you can either apologize or not. Either way it speaks volumes about your character.

Cheers!

"I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth and then building your strawman on that basis."

Or you can just keep squirming around the question: Do the 1st and 4th amendments (the ones potentially relevant in the case of the Texas kindergarden teacher) apply to states, yes or no?

EDIT: All right, fine, you're not ignorant and well informed about Constitutional law. Better? So now you can answer the question.

...then try and tell me again how I'm "squirming", assuming you're willing to further embarrass yourself. I've already answered that question before you even asked it so I'm at least 2 steps ahead of you. That has nothing to do with the tangent you are on which I also stated in the same sentence.

One of us most certainly is squirming here. I already told you that you can either admit you are wrong or not. You've chosen the later and your silence speaks volumes.

I'm not going to repeat myself just so you can play your circular ad nauseum games and project your other fallacies and character flaws. Future requests for repeats will just be followed by the post #. Cuts down on the bandwidth dedicated to your chronic case of the chickenshits.

Cheers!

Remember, all this started with your assertion that the Bill of Rights (and the other individual rights specified as protected in the Constitution) doesn't apply to the states. A question on which courts may make all manner of rulings that I would consider wrong, but which allow you to claim that this or that clause may not apply to states. Nevertheless, the Bill of Rights does apply, the 14th amendment spelled that out clearly, the history of incorporation decisions has for the most part borne it out, and there's no doubt about 1 and 4 applying, which are the potentially relevant amendments to this case.

And yes, you did say it about 1 and 4! But you also went on and on about the history of incorporation in general, as though it would apply, and attacked me endlessly, as though that would make you right. So there's been a lot of obfuscation around a side matter.

At any rate, it's my fault for responding to your original assertion by calling it ignorant. I should have been nicer. Sorry.

Thanks!

I clearly pointed out all of this was tangential right out of the starting blocks, and no it didn't start with my assertion that the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states, it started with you asserting that it did inexplicably and incorrectly. See post #114, first sentence. It's a bit too late to pull the obfuscation card. You're now more than 4 posts behind and still projecting. You should quit while you're behind. Or not. I'm enjoying it thoroughly, although there are limits to how far into your absurdity I'm willing to dive.

someone else can take her job.

I'm going to be subbing...they are fingerprinting everyone....all school employees are doing this.

She won't keep her job.

.

If a teacher needs to be fingerprinted as part of requirement to keep a job teaching children, and refuses on religious grounds, make her prove her assertation that there is an actual religious text defining getting fingerprinted as the 'mark of the beast'.

Specifically. No generalizations. Show me the passage in your religious canon warning against fingerprinting.

Nobody is going to make an exception for her.

invasion of privacy? While we're at it let's get that implanted microchip too. She may be a nut, but she's right, you morons.

South Carolina, for ex, has required fingerprinting for certified teachers since 1983.

for initial licensure as a teacher per Kansas Dept of Ed:

"Does Kansas require a background clearance for licensure?

Yes. All applicants for an initial Kansas license must submit one fingerprint card for the purpose of a KBI and FBI background clearance report.

Fingerprints are also required for applicants whose Kansas certificate/license has been expired for 6 months or more."
http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=158

If you teach in Kansas you may not have been required to be fingerprinted due to previous licensure, but those now applying for a license are required to submit fingerprints for the purpose of background checks.

either certified/licensed or employed. (Including Missouri and other states contiguous to Kansas.) Whether or not these states have "grandfathered" in teachers who have already been certified/licensed/employed is another matter.

It also isn't going to do a damn thing to improve education.

disagreed with the requirement, not that it wasn't required. OK.

We're all born with fingerprints and we're made in God's image...

... might lose their career for refusing to submit personal information to the government without probable cause? Her reasoning might be fucked up, but it is taking a serious shit on the 4th amendment to force people not even suspected of doing anything wrong to submit to fingerprinting or lose their career.

because she has a criminal record. It's certainly possible.

If they have no probable cause to believe she has committed any crime, she shouldn't be forced to unwillingly give her fingerprints.

First, to do an internship working with children, then, for a CA teaching license, then for an Oregon teaching license. Sometimes they didn't turn out clear enough so I had to go back to get fingerprinted again until they felt they were readable. I can't help it that I have smooth fingertips. There are several bureaus that have my fingerprints, but they each demand to get a fresh copy of their own, each time you apply for certain licenses.

It is a hassle, but society has decided that people guilty of certain criminal offenses should not work with children. That woman needs to get fingerprinted like everybody else in her profession.

They have enough background of any teacher (SSN, transcripts, licenses, test scores, criminal background checks, etc.) that they don't need fingerprints. Forcing a fingerprint is just another intrusion. Soon that won't even be enough and they'll want DNA samples.

No matter how you slice it, it's a violation of the 4th amendment with the excuse of "Oh, everyone has to do it".

I had to do fingerprints for my teaching cert.

It's not so different in principle from having to undergo a background check to buy a gun. It's not a presumption of guilt at all. It's a result of states being held responsible for ensuring that felons don't buy weapons, or that child molesters can't circumvent the system to get a job where they have unsupervised access and authority over children.

If the state didn't take reasonable precautions to ensure those things, they would be (justifiably) held accountable in court if a convicted molester was hired into a public school system.

It's a known condition of employment, and employers can do all manner of things in a job a person voluntarily takes or keeps, as long as the employee is notified. You seem to be incorrectly interpreting how those amendments and constitutional rights apply to specific situations (what a government can dictate for random citizens vs. what an employer can dictate for an employee.)

Wiretapping is a violation of rights - except not in a place like a call center where employees are notified their calls may be monitored. Emails can't be intercepted - except by employers when the employees are notified that's company policy. Free speech is a constitutional right - but within the confines of a business, an employer can restrict what you can or can't say. In my private life, I can preach religion - in a public classroom, I can't. Freedom of press is a right - but an editor can fire an employee for writing inappropriate copy for a newspaper.

Almost all states now require fingerprinting of teachers either when they apply for a license/cert or before the teacher is employed. Additionally, many states have fingerprinting requirements for the purpose of background checks for a variety of licensed professions. It's a condition of employment, of practicing a profession. What's surprising is to see how many people evidently are unaware of such existing requirements.

Does this woman have a Texas driver's license? If she does, there goes her argument. A thumb print is required and retained in a database.

It's just one of those violations that politicians and other citizens don't give a shit about (like war on drugs legislation). You have to provide enough identity information to become a teacher that fingerprints are superfluous. To make it a condition to be employed by the state is intrusive upon your rights as a citizen.

for states to require fingerprints for criminal background checks for various public and private occupations. Courts, however, have ruled that it is not a 4th amendment violation for Feds, states, local gov'ts to require fingerprints for employment/licensure if they have a rational basis for requiring them. And such employment is, of course, voluntary.

Fingerprint checks can on occasion turn up things that aren't disclosed by the applicant or readily found by other means. Having dealt with state vocational licensing agencies, I came across some interesting and on occasion frightening stuff. For example, people applying for security guard licenses with serious violent criminal histories who didn't disclose them and provided phony references and employment histories. Just the kinds of folks you want as state licensed security guards. Some, having been granted temp licenses pending the results from DOJ, were committing violent crimes while on the job against the people for whom they were providing "security."

Think state licensing agencies have the resources to conduct extensive background checks on individuals applying for licensure? Think they call or write references, employers and universities to check what the applicants put on their applications? No, it's just checking to see if the required info and paperwork appears to be included with the applicaton. (In the past, in cases where people moved from state to state, even disciplinary actions by other states' licensing agencies were not readily available for another state to check. Perhaps that's changed since I stopped dealing with vocational licensing agencies. They were talking about establishing a national database.) And how can these agencies readily conduct accurate criminal background checks without fingerprints?

Where licensing agencies can go wrong is when people in sensitive positions (health and safety for ex) are allowed to practice before the fingerprint checks come back and/or not ever requiring them again after initial licensure. For ex: http://www.propublica.org/article/criminal-past-is-no-b...

An incident I recall is a local case of a janitor who was employed by a school district before the fingerprint check came back from DOJ. It wasn't until after he was arrested for murdering a student that they learned he was on parole for manslaughter and also had served time for domestic violence. Seems he hadn't included that info on his applicaton. That info might have been good to know before his employment in the district. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/19/us/suspect-in-student...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

---

You finally found an example! Your logic says we should all be required to give fingerprints and blood and total surveillance rights to the state without cause, because then some wrongdoers will be caught.

Head-up-the-ass-ignorance knows no political affiliatoin.

She can always teach in a storefront Jesus school.. I'm sure they'd be happy to hire you.