Do school uniforms violate the 1st ammendment?

[TexArcana]

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.

[TexArcana]

Yep, I was going to type a response like TexArcana's.

On the other hand, private schools have every right to enforce a dress code if they want, assuming attendance at the school is voluntary.  It's no different from a business that requires its employees to wear a certain uniform or follow a certain dress code.

So I think a dress code in a private school is constitutiona.

Yes.  That's right.  A private school could do whatever they wanted in terms of dress code or uniform (as long as the parents agreed) any parent who disagreed would have to find a different school.

[TexArcana]

I completely agree with TexArcana, so far in your short time in the forum your posts have been good and intelligent.

Thank you Liberty. (nice nom-de-web BTW)

It's always nice to find people with whom one can have a reasoned discourse.  Especially people with whom I might disagree.  I always learn something new.

If you want to do something nice for me, ask Dave Leip to please put Badnarik as a choice on the predicition map.  (yeah, I know he's on vacation but he'll be back soon.)

to paraphrase - "I would never allow a difference of opinion in politics, religion, or philosophy to keep me from a friend"

I think it's attributable to Thomas Jefferson, but I can't find it for certain.

[TexArcana]

No, but school uniforms are still a waste of time, money, and effort and flat out stupid.

I Agree.  BTW, check out my cartoon on the bottom of page 25 of the cartoon thread.  It's just for you.

Tex Arcana

[TexArcana]

In both cases, muon, I would remind those who would push uniforms on an unsuspecting people that we have freedom of association in this country. Unfortunately for these namby-pambies, that just reinforces my argument.

Migrendel, You are correct that we should have freedom of association in this country.

However, in practice, many children are compelled to attend a specific school.  They have no choice (or more correctly their parents have no choice for them) in where to attend.  They may not even have the choice of not attending.

[TexArcana]

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.  

You are trying to change history.  You didn't say "people" in your first post, you said "citizens."

Citizens are not mentioned in the Constitution at all, except to say that Congress has the power to decide the requirements for citizenship, and the after 1806, presidents must be natural-born citizens.

My larger point stands - The Constitution is not a grant of privilege to the citizens (or the people), it is a delegation of the people's authority to the Government.

I appologize if any of what I wrote seemed rude.  I was trying to be humourous and imitate Robin Williams in the movie "Dead Poet's Society"  I forgot that such subtleties do not transcribe well in text formats.

[TexArcana]

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.

re: movie reference - no prob, like I said it doesn't trascribe well.

re: syntax versus substance - agree.

re: 1st amendment - I see where you are coming from.  I could have used some other section of the Constitution to make my point, but the 1st amendment is most easily recognizable.  Many peole in other states wanted certain guarantees also.

Some thought that since Congress had never been granted the authority to censor speech in the article 1 section 8, that a 1st amendment was not needed.  With the power of hindsight, I think we can all agree how wrong that line of reasoning was.  Without a first amendment we would have had various censorship laws passed long ago (for the good of the children, and to prevent people from impuning the honor and dignity of elected officials. etc. etc. etc.  X(  )

Others argued that if we made a list of what was protected, then the politicians and courts would assume that everything else was fair game.  This is why we have the two catch-all amendments #9 and #10

If anyone ever says to you:  "You don't have a right to fill-in-the-blank.  Show me where it says that in the constitution."

Smile and point to the ninth and tenth amendments and challenge them to show where fill-in-the-blank has been delegated to congress or the president or the states.

[TexArcana]

Hey, i am left on this view... school uniforms are a waste of time. Let us wear what we want..

Sorry Josh

You have to wear what your parents (owners) say.