Do school uniforms violate the 1st ammendment?

[angus]

No.  The constitution deals with citizens.  Whether we define as citizens Free White Males Over 21 Who Own Land, or whether we define it slightly more broadly, we still only apply it to citizens.  If we want to define citizens so broadly that it includes children, then we can, but as far as I can tell, given that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun or practice medicine, 18 to vote or join the army, it is clear that we do not give the same rights and responsibilities to children as we do to adults.  (This assumes school uniforms refers to school uniforms for minors, not for college students.)

[angus]

No.  The constitution deals with citizens.  Whether we define as citizens Free White Males Over 21 Who Own Land, or whether we define it slightly more broadly, we still only apply it to citizens.  If we want to define citizens so broadly that it includes children, then we can, but as far as I can tell, given that you have to be 21 to buy a handgun or practice medicine, 18 to vote or join the army, it is clear that we do not give the same rights and responsibilities to children as we do to adults.  (This assumes school uniforms refers to school uniforms for minors, not for college students.)

Child-hater

Do you support the UN Treaty on the Rights of a Child or whatever? >P

The question did not ask whether I hated children.  Only whether I thought abridging their rights was unconstitutional.  I do not believe that our society believes that children should be subject to the same rights and responsibilities as adults.  Our laws are very clear on this.

For the record, I do not like to be told what to wear either.  I'm not sure what that treaty says, as I haven't read it.  But I do know if my kid sh**ts all over your lawn, I ought to bear some responsibility for that.  So if the treaty is the sort of document that relinquishes of their responsibilities, then no I don't support it.  I suspect that ultimately that's where this sort of thing is headed.  A big part of the reason I'm a republican is because I lament that we live in a culture that increasingly disregards personal responsibility.  The victim mentality has worked its way into our mindset and we live in a sue-happy society.  Mamma made me eat brocolli, so I think I'll sue the bitch.  No thanks.  Not something I want to support.

[angus]

The constitution deals with citizens.

Everyone born in the United States is a citizen, regardless of their age (unless they opt to renounce their citizenship).

Besides, the Bill of Rights applies to everything within American territory, not just citizens, so the point is moot.

not so.  The President himself has pointed this out wrt detainees at guantanamo bay.  While we usually, as a matter of courtesy and custom, afford rights to all people, they are not guaranteed except to the US persons.  And if you think children have the same rights as adults, in general, then you are clearly mistaken.  This is not a subject of controversy, the law is clear and you can look it up.  I can legally do things I could not do when I was younger.  That is a condition about which there seems to be little debate.  

I am not advocating school uniforms.  I don't like dress codes and uniforms either.  Didn't when I was a child, and still don't, but they are not unconstitutional because the constitution does not guarantee my rights and responsibilities until I am an adult.  If you think they do, then send your kids to the cornershop to buy you a package of Marlboros.  The experiment should convince you otherwise.

[angus]

I don't see that it violates the first amendment. But dress codes don't make people smarter. Why would we want schools to impose them on our kids?

It's a leftist thing.  If I wear italian suits, and you wear converse shoes from Wal-Mart and hand-me-downs, I will intimidate you.  Commies like everyone to be equal, contrary to Natural Law.  So they want uniforms so there's no rich and no poor.  Like all selfish greedy manipulative, secretive, right-wing bastards, I prefer a situation wherein the rich are allowed to hold sway over the poor, so, naturally, I detest uniforms.  

But the question really wasn't about whether you like or dislike them.  Unless you're a hardcore leftist authoritarian, you probably don't.  The question asked whether they violate the nation's highest law.  I say it doesn't, since it applies to those americans who, by accident of their birthdate, have not yet attained full citizenship status.

[angus]

Well, we may live in the USA, but our brains are programmed by Hollywood, so what you and I see as either glaring ignorance may just be an honest mistake.  You'll see lots of nasty movies about Nazis and fascists, but how often are the guys at the other end of the political spectrum shown in their true light?  We are told regularly how many Jews Hitler killed, but not so often how many Stalin killed.  We see beatings under a black flag, but never under a red one.  I would not be surprised if there's a whole generation who gets its education not from textbooks, but from Hollywood.  And if that is the case, then you can understand Bandit's mistake.  I think authoritarianism, whether the flag flying over it is Red or Black, is undesirable.  Yes, there is a such thing as rightist authoritarianism too, as we GOP types sometimes forget.  And the authoritarian right is as scary as the authoritarian left.  I'll assume that's the point that Bandit was making.  I'll further assume that Bandit gets more history from school than from movies, and was just being funny.

[angus]

No.  The constitution deals with citizens.  

BZZzzzT!  Oh!  I'm sorry.  Thanks for playing.

The constitution deals with the government.  It is a limit on the power of the congress, president, and supreme court.  It is not a grant of privilege for citizens.

Just look at the form of the 1st amendment.
http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm
It does not say "A citizen may attend the church of his choice, or none; speak what he will, or print whatever he chooses, etc."

It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

All throughout the document the chains are set upon the government.  This is why the treatment of the detainees at guantanamo is so wrong.  The federal government is not allowed to treat anyone that way, citizen, non-citizen, or even extraterestrial alien.

Tex Arcana

P.S. The first amendment is quoted above, and I don't see anything about dress codes.  That would be covered under the ninth and tenth amendments, inasmuch as nowhere in the Constitution is congress (or the states) allowed to pass laws respecting what is considered proper dress.  So I had to vote no in the poll, since it's not the 1st amendment that prohibits dress codes.  

The constitution only applies to the Federal government anyway, and nowhere in the document is Congress or the President allowed to be involved in education at all.  The entire Dept of Education is unconstitutional.

Yet both major party candidates want to spend more money on education.  Just one more reason I'm a Libertarian.

You may be mistaken.  The amendment you quote, along with the entire bill of rights, was not part of the original document.  (Thus the use of the word "amendment")  It was introduced to placate the people of rhode island, which became the 13th US state long after the other 12 had banded together.  The RI legislature would not ratify until its citizens had been guaranteed certain rights.

And, if you read even a little, you'll notice the third word in the Constitution is People.  Without the people there is no government.  To claim that I'm mistaken about the document dealing with people, and to further claim that the document only deals with the government leaves a false impression.  To follow that statement with a reprint of the First Amendment is paradox.

"Just one more reason I'm not a Libertarian."

Thank you for playing.  

[angus]

Ah, fuçkit!  yeah, I shoulda got that.  I was a big fan of Robin, and that movie, and have a "Dead Poets Society" poster somewhere that the Cinema guy finally gave me years ago after I bugged him every day about it.  I don't disagree, except in the fine point that the Bill of Rights was specifically added as a guarantor of right, and to placate RI.  But we're dabbling in arguing over syntax, I think, not substance.