Do school uniforms violate the 1st ammendment?

[John Dibble]

I don't like them, but no.

[John Dibble]

Of course, let's not forget that business dress codes are legal.

[John Dibble]

Dress codes, I don't like, but they're perfectly fine, I understand why they are there.  Uniforms, I agree with Bandit, are fascist-like.  

Are military uniforms and work uniforms fascist-like?

[John Dibble]

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.

Indeed - if the Constitution and the Bill of Rights applies to children, then five year olds have the right to bear arms and form militias. Anyone want that happening?

[John Dibble]

Unless you're a hardcore leftist authoritarian,

"Leftist authoritarian" is an oxymoron.

[sarcasm]Right - which is why Communist Russia wasn't authoritarian.[/sarcasm]

[John Dibble]

The constitution deals with both the government(mainly the government) and the people. When it boils down to it, it says 'you may or may not do these things to the people, who gave you your power in the first place'. The people are clearly involved, as angus says.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

This shows that the people are using this Constitution to say 'this is how the government works, and this is the government we want'. Amendments are saying 'we are changing/restricting/unrestricting the government in some way'. Though not part of the original Constitution, they are a part of it. The amendments, especially the bill of rights, apply to the lawmaking body of government(Congress), though it is now applied to all government(which isn't necessarily a bad thing), by telling them what they can't do to the people. So, yes, the Constitution is to chain the government down, but once again, I agree with angus that you can't say the people aren't involved in it.

[John Dibble]

Of course, let's not forget that business dress codes are legal.

Businesses = private
Public schools = public

True. Still, I don't think uniforms are unconstitutional in public schools, even if I think they are a stupid idea.