Violating the Spirit of America at the RMV, specifically, the Spirit of the First Amendment

Somebody's Daughter and Somebody's Teacher reports her car almost failed inspection today - not because her lights or brakes or horn don't work, but because her license-plate cover obscured part of the vitally important "Spirit of America" slogan at the bottom. Sure enough, the Registry informs us of the vital importance of not covering up this vitally important part of the license plate:

Regulations require that all letters, numbers, stickers, and symbols must be clearly visible on the number plate. A number plate frame that obstructs any part of the plate is illegal, and you could be fined for having an obstructed plate.

On her drive home, Somebody's Daughter counted more than two dozen cars flagrantly violating this vitally important regulation:

... But what's the point of the law, really? Will seeing "The Spirit of America" written on a license plate make us more patriotic or something? Increase military enrollment? Stop the internal America bashing?

Regardless of the answers, the Registry of Motor Vehicles apparently doesn't employ any constitutional scholars, because the Supreme Court ruled in 1977, in Wooley v. Maynard, that a state cannot force a resident to display a motto on their license plate.

Now, that case involved a resident of a certain state who objected to its rather harsh, blunt political statement (one guess which state that was and no, it wasn't America's Dairyland) - to the point he spent 15 days in jail rather than uncover that slogan. In contrast, one might be hard pressed to fathom a reason to object to "Spirit of America" beyond the inane blandness of it. Still, the fact remains that the highest court in the land has spoken rather decisively on the issue:

The State's claimed interests in requiring display of the state motto on license plates (1) so as to facilitate the identification of passenger vehicles, and (2) so as to promote appreciation of history, individualism, and state pride, are not sufficiently compelling to justify infringement of appellees' First Amendment rights. The purpose of the first interest could be achieved by less drastic means, and the second interest cannot outweigh an individual's First Amendment right to avoid becoming the courier for the State's ideological message.