American flag shirts banned at school on Cinco de Mayo

doompornjunkie

lakesidepark

doompornjunkie
I did give you a reference, I told you to read the Constitution. The feds say 21 to buy a gun, my state says 18 to own one, some states are pushing for the age to carry to be 18! The Constitution grants the right to own and bare arms. Whats your point exactly...?

edit on 1-3-2014 by doompornjunkie because: (no reason given)

18? 21? Seem you agree that these rights are ROUTINELY limited to ADULTS. And those have not been struck down as unconstitutional limits? Can a 5-year old get a permit to carry a gun? No. And I doubt seriously a constitutional argument pushed to ANY court has a chance in hell of reversing that.

Constitutional rights are limited by age. A fact you have already proven, so I need no reference, thank you for that. Now...try again.

hahaha no the Constitution still has no age limits. I had my first gun when I was 4, I just bought my niece her first gun (she is 4) my FFL had no problems doing this knowing the gun was for her. I was just simply stating that other entities are the ones that TRY to make age restrictions. As of yet, there are still no specific limits on free speech or protest. Go back to Russia or something.

You mean your PARENTS allowed you to have a gun at age 4. You and the PARENTS of your neice allowed her to have a gun you provided for her.

I would bet neither of you are / were allowed to get permits to carry those guns even though it may have been legal for ADULTS to carry in your state. Neither of you were allowed on any public property without a parent or guardian in tow, and if so, were just lucky, unless carrying hunting guns in an area suited for hunting, not to be stopped and detained for it (of course I do remember going hunting with my friends at the age of 14 with no adult with us, but this was mostly on private property).

Ask you niece to take her gun and walk downtown with it strapped to her side, see how far your Constitutional rights work to keep her and her parents out of jail.

Those are undisputed limits applied to the Constitution, and upheld consistently by the courts. That is the difference in simply reading words of the Constitution, and understanding the application of the Constitution. Over the years, the limits have been changed based on interpretation (used to be only white landowners had all rights, then all white men, then all men, and finally all adults [men and women], but nowhere has there been an amendment added to state that all children enjoy all these rights).

That is the point, the school has the right to limit constitutional freedoms to minors. Your point that the Constitution does not specifically set an age limit is a moot point, because that argument is sufficiently blunted by the many examples of precisely where Constitutional limits are applied and upheld in regards to children without dispute.

Word-game semantics is all you have for an argument, with your proof only supporting my rebuttal, unless you provide proof the words MAN and MEN are re-defined to include children as they have been re-defined to include man and woman of all races.

You have yet to present an argument that supports the rights of these children to wear U.S. flags on Cinco de Mayo when the school district has deemed it inciteful and disruptive.

I am outraged! Perhaps it's because I am so fed up with those whose intention it is to dismantle this Country.

I did not read all the comments, but did read many. I agree with those who contend that if those who celebrate
Cinco de Mayo are offended by USA children (and/or adults) wearing USA flag shirts in the USA AT ANY TIME...then go the F back to where they came from!

Someone mentioned the Irish. I have never once in my 61 years, heard of any problems occurring because an USA resident wore an USA flag shirt on St. Patty's Day. NEVER!

I absolutely disagree with the Court's decision. NOTHING TRUMPS THE CONSTITUTION. All laws repugnant to the Constitution are in and of themselves null and void! Marbury vs. Madison (The foregoing is in reference to this phrase/statement from the Huffington Post's article about the matter: ..."The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the officials' concerns of racial violence outweighed students' freedom of expression rights..." No, it does NOT outweigh students' freedom of expression!!!!!!).

Kali74
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

I get what you're saying and agree with you 99.99%. In California and other border States, Mexicans are the indigenous people, it's rude and unpatriotic for anyone to use the American flag in such a manner as to taunt Mexican-Americans on Cinco de Mayo. However I don't agree with the court ruling on this. I think there's a more appropriate way to discipline those kids. Like maybe a 1,000 word essay on the battle, what lead up to it and what resulted from it.

Hmmm. I might agree with that, but I would also like the school to have an assembly where they publicly shame the kids wearing the American flag shirts. Call them out by name and tell them they should be ashamed of their intolerance and their willingness to incite problems on this day. Hey, it's their free speech. Humiliate the kids enough, and maybe they won't do it next time.

I'm getting real sick of this $#!t.
USA! USA!

Would make more sense to 'ban' the unofficial holiday than to ban clothing.

But this is California, where the only people you can justifiably insult are the non-Hispanic white minority.

Habit4ming
I am outraged! ...I did not read all the comments....

Probably not a good idea before responding, since the responses clarify a LOT. I'd go back and read them before responding to this and rattling off an embarrassing attack that has already been settled a dozen posts ago.

but did read many. I agree with those who contend that if those who celebrate
Cinco de Mayo are offended by USA children (and/or adults) wearing USA flag shirts in the USA AT ANY TIME...

This thread was specific about CHILDREN, not adults / children, and specific to the SCHOOL, not ANYWHERE / ANYTIME. Big difference when discussing constitutional rights. You can agree all you want. Doesn't change the right the school has to dictate what is worn in their classrooms. Per the history, it seems they didn't play well together the last two holidays, so they took action well within their rights, and did not strip any rights from the children.

Children have the right to a secure home and a good education, but they do NOT have full constitutional rights until they reach the age of adulthood. If you disagree....lets move past the 1st amendment and move on down to the 2nd amendment and define how that right also applies to children as a good example of rights NOT allowed children legally. Or note the current legal definition of 'man' and 'men' as applied to the Constitution and tell me where that includes children.

then go the F back to where they came from!

Two students wearing the U.S. flag were Hispanic, and they came from the states. So they are already where they come from.

Someone mentioned the Irish. I have never once in my 61 years, heard of any problems occurring because an USA resident wore an USA flag shirt on St. Patty's Day. NEVER!

Back in the late 1800's when Irish immigrants were treated identical to the former slaves as scum, that was not a problem since they weren't allowed to celebrate any holidays.

If we had a current wave of illegal immigration coming from Ireland taking jobs from U.S. citizens without papers and draining the system....I'm absolutely sure they would be abused too.

I absolutely disagree with the Court's decision. NOTHING TRUMPS THE CONSTITUTION. All laws repugnant to the Constitution are in and of themselves null and void! Marbury vs. Madison (The foregoing is in reference to this phrase/statement from the Huffington Post's article about the matter: ..."The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the officials' concerns of racial violence outweighed students' freedom of expression rights..." No, it does NOT outweigh students' freedom of expression!!!!!!).

As already addressed (refer to the parts that you didn't read therefore fail to respond to), the Constitutionally-granted rights are not full until adulthood. If children have the unfettered rights to disrupt for any reason simply because they have free speech, maybe we should go on down the list, let them bear arms in self-defense against their playmates in the playground, own property, have the right to prevent parents from searching their rooms...etc.

We are talking children, that are specifically wearing the flag to incite and disrupt in the classroom. the only thing wrong with this decision is that it should have addressed the issue fairly, i.e. forcing school uniform dress to prevent any clothing from classroom disruption.

They can wear whatever flag they want outside the school, if their daddy wants to dress them in a swatstika knock theirselves out, but there, parents, school administrators, and citizens have the right to dictate what the kids do...the kids only have the rights granted by guardians.

Why is that so inflammatory? Why must we allow our children to do anything they want? For that matter, allow them to parrot their parent's politics and bias for them? Allow them to believe there are no limits and responsibilities for exercizing their rights? This is an educational environment, and limits are necessary to allow their education.

Poor decisions by administrators and poor performance of teachers, and even the illegal immigration issues, are separate from this one...and issues I would have a very different and maybe even opposing opinion to what I express on this issue. This issue is what kids think they are allowed to do vs. what parents, and school officials, decide what is best for them, and on that one, the parents and school officials win, as the children have no say in the matter. If they did, then they wouldn't need an education.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


And Wrabbit, what is the better lesson?

That conflict should result in censorship of offending opinions?


OR

That conflict should be addressed head on through education and debate, that differences of opinion need not end in violence, that we as a society prize Knowledge and Wisdom over Ignorance and Violence?

As always its simply lazy solutions from the schools as always, where the path of least resistance is always preferable to education, just because there is precedent for censorship for public safety doesn't mean it was the answer in this case.

ETA:

Taken as a micro of a macro situation, the above is the core of all issues we face in society today. We have become a nation content to give up our freedoms for safety. In order to appease the ignorant in fear of their reaction to our "rights" we stifle them?

Someone might blow up a building, Quick government take the 4th away.

Someone might be offended or react violently to something, Quick censor it before that happens.

We have become a nation of people unwilling to take personal responsibility for anything, Our safety, Our Education, Our Finances, Our Children.

We are content to hand those all over to someone else, because of the danger of consequence.

reply to post by benrl


Not to hijack your question to Wrabbit (who I respect as a worthy contributor whether I agree with him always or not)....

They had a debate reaching the second-highest debate forum in the land (federal appeals court), and can still take it to the top debate forum in the land (SCOTUS), but as it stands now, the school won the debate until appealled.

For the rest of your response added while I was posting....I fully agree...when applied to adults. Those are different issues when talking about stripping freedoms from everyone. This is about limits to children who only have basic rights until adulthood, the remainder of rights being granted as priviledge, subject to being revoked, at the wisdom of parents and guardians and those responsible for education.

reply to post by lakesidepark


Yea, as I understand it, its the USE of public safety that is the issue.

Which the SCOTUS has already ruled on in many cases, its why the school is on the winning side of this.

The SCOTUS would have to chose to re-examine the issue of Public Safety in schools vs student civil rights (which it has and rulled in favor of public safety in schools).

Which in this case the school is using broadly to censor free speech (which schools already do in the interest of public safety, IE Gang attire).

The question being raised to contest it, is if the issue would really be that wearing the flag on this day could incite a riot, and the school is using the argument of past incident to say it could.

Like I said though, JUST because something has precedent, and legally allowable, does not mean it was the best solution and that should not be the measure we judge things by.

reply to post by benrl

And Wrabbit, what is the better lesson?

That conflict should result in censorship of offending opinions?

I think we're going in the wrong direction with the thinking here entirely. Legitimate questions of expression, if that's what it was about, could and should have been addressed in civics class or upon meeting this resistance after showing up in the shirts? Start a movement within the school for an assembly on this very topic or something equally ...awkward... at the very least, for administration to have to deal with. Media attention getting, too.

"Going to guns" and filing suit, which IS the California way after all, is beneficial to the people filing it when they win (and I'm actually surprised they didn't, given the court venue) but how much did learning they were wrong cost the school district and bankrupt state to defend? I don't care what super-silly gymnastics Gov. Moonbeam has accomplished to make a red abyss of budget ink into a black happy face of positive numbers, but that's a bankrupt state that can't afford to educate a few students at this cost.

Nothing was accomplished.... So on the level of asking broader questions like lessons learned? I hope they learned why school districts are tapped past broke after graft, corruption and general incompetence within the system is taken off.

reply to post by kaylaluv


How bout we can can chant USA all we damn want inside the USA. And if someone doesn't like it they can take their ass to some other place where nobody loves the USA.

Who the hell is anybody to tell someone they can't represent heir own country inside their own country. Imagine if we all decided to go to Italy and on the 4th of July we all insist all the Italian students wear american tshirts and better not have any Italian shirts on in their own damned country or I'm going to whine like a little non functional member of society because nobody will indulge me in my la raza attitude.

BASSPLYR
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

How bout we can can chant USA all we damn want inside the USA. And if someone doesn't like it they can take their ass to some other place where nobody loves the USA.

Who the hell is anybody to tell someone they can't represent heir own country inside their own country. Imagine if we all decided to go to Italy and on the 4th of July we all insist all the Italian students wear american tshirts and better not have any Italian shirts on in their own damned country or I'm going to whine like a little non functional member of society because nobody will indulge me in my la raza attitude.

You might have something close to a point only no one is insisting that anyone wear Mexican shirts. The question is why would you feel the need to start chanting USA at people participating in Cinco De Mayo festivities? It has already been pointed out several times in this thread that it has primarily been a day celebrated by Mexican Americans since 1862. Is it really that threatening to you that this is something that you must do to validate yourself? The issue isn't American flag T-shirts. The problem is children trying to wrap themselves in pseudo patriotism to specifically incite problems. If you have ever dealt with children for any length of time, one of the first things you would discover is that they will look for and typically find any way they can to make each other miserable without getting in trouble themselves. Unfortunately in this particular case the matter is a bit more inflammatory than most similar issues because of our unaddressed immigration polices and the biases that go with them.

KeliOnyx
You might have something close to a point only no one is insisting that anyone wear Mexican shirts. The question is why would you feel the need to start chanting USA at people participating in Cinco De Mayo festivities? It has already been pointed out several times in this thread that it has primarily been a day celebrated by Mexican Americans since 1862. Is it really that threatening to you that this is something that you must do to validate yourself? The issue isn't American flag T-shirts. The problem is children trying to wrap themselves in pseudo patriotism to specifically incite problems. If you have ever dealt with children for any length of time, one of the first things you would discover is that they will look for and typically find any way they can to make each other miserable without getting in trouble themselves. Unfortunately in this particular case the matter is a bit more inflammatory than most similar issues because of our unaddressed immigration polices and the biases that go with them.

How about anyone living within a country, as a citizen of that country, be allowed to demonstrate their feelings about that country on any particular day of the year without fear of censorship?

And, the questions must be asked:
Why are Americans celebrating the independence of a country they are not citizens of within the borders of the USA?
Do these same Americans celebrate the independence of the USA with the same fervor and enthusiasm expressed?
Is the display of Mexican, Kenyan, Polish and other flags on clothing similarly banned on July 4?

KeliOnyx
You might have something close to a point only...[t]he question is why would you feel the need to start chanting USA at people participating in Cinco De Mayo festivities?

Why does that even matter though at the heart of the spirit of not only the Federal Government's First Amendment but also the State of California's following Constitution:

Article 1, Section 1 states: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights."

Further, Article 1, Section 2 clearly states: "Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right."

One could see how students who were forced to change their shirts can claim violation of Article I, Section 7. In that, it reads in part: "A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the
laws;"

The students were deprived of their own property without due process and were denied equal protection to their "Mexican-American" peers.

It has already been pointed out several times in this thread that it has primarily been a day celebrated by Mexican Americans since 1862.

American's nonetheless no? Allowing such division creates this situation that we read in the opinion. For instance, while the students were forced to change their attire, it is clear that the issue actually stemmed from those who held deep emotional connection to a day. In the Opinion, we read that one of the students that was wearing an American flag shirt, was asked “Why are you wearing that? Do you not like Mexicans[?]”

It should matter not why the child is wearing a shirt, it doesn't imply like or disdain. At what point can a school, in fear of a perceived potential for violence can force a child to remove their Star of David necklace on Ramadan? Or deny a child their expression of religion on Ash Wednesday?

The problem is children trying to wrap themselves in pseudo patriotism to specifically incite problems.

I partial agree here, but that is a large assumption since that wasn't even part of this case as I read through the Opinion.

Unfortunately in this particular case the matter is a bit more inflammatory than most similar issues because of our unaddressed immigration polices and the biases that go with them.

Yep.

reply to post by abecedarian


Read the entire thread, the reasons we as Americans should have a reason to celebrate Cinco de Mayo are well-layed out.

But simply this - were it not for the events of May 5th, 1862 at Puebla, we might be flying the Stars and Bars or even worse, reporting to France as our ruling power.

Its ironic, that if children were taught proper history, we wouldn't be discussing the animosity toward a Mexican independence day (which it is NOT), and Mexicans would see us wearing our stars and stripes, and see it as us being proud of them for what they did to keep their flag that also helped us keep ours at a dark point of history where our flag was definitely in distress (Ft. Sumter anyone??) and we were in no position to help Mexico to avoid an invasion by forces that were also intent on assisting the breakup of the Union. A takeover of Mexico would have opened the supply lines for the Confederate forces which France had already agreed to help.

History, grasshopper. ' history...never repeats...I tell myself, before I go to sleep... '

Of course, sarcasm, but I happen to be playing 'name that tune' tonight. Identify song and artist and you get a star for your efforts.

reply to post by kaylaluv

kaylaluv
Does anyone know why the students want to wear the flag shirts during Cinco De Mayo? There's no reason other than to start some sh## - which is EXACTLY what those students had in mind. Their message is, "Screw you, wetbacks. We don't give a damn about your stupid Mexican holiday." If you think that is not what those students are trying to say with the flag shirts, then you are either very naive or very stupid.

You know what my feeling is? If you are going to hate on Hispanics that much, and if you are going to be allowed to flaunt in their face how much you hate and disrespect them on the ONE day of the year they celebrate their heritage - then you shouldn't be allowed to ever eat Mexican food. It's not your food, it's their food - it came from their country - not from America. If you hate them and their country so much, never eat a taco, burrito or enchilada again. No tortillas for you. No nachos, no margaritas, no tequila. It's not yours - it's theirs.

Ok fair enough and while were at it. Please don't ever let me catch you saying that you have freedom of speech, freedom to assemble or to protest or that you have the right to due process. In fact please don't let me hear so much as a word from you about the constitution since you seem to me the type that would only refer to such document out of convenience. Yet you aren't willing to stand bye it or defend it.

Lots of good responses from both sides of the argument and some not so good. But if and when in the USA it is forbidden to display your own flag it is a sign that we are a nation with many deeper rooted problems and issues. That is what it suggests.

Lets just say for an instance that American flags are banned on a high school campus because someone might find it offensive and resort to violence. So who is not to say it couldn't happen at a mall or on the street corner, hell maybe in your own home. While were at it, it could offend black people on Martin Luther King Day or Black history month, maybe we should ban American flags on those days too, and St Patties day and hell if we go that far might as well be Easter and Christmas too since none of those are American Holidays. In fact lets just go ahead and designate which days it is okay to display the flag in your own country and which days it is not okay.

Does that make everybody happy?

lakesidepark
The Constitution guarantees the right to vote - but NOT to minors.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to vote; it only guarantees that certain factors will not be used to discriminate in terms of the States' voting process. There are not Federal elections, only State elections to Federal office; therefore, no Constitutional Right to vote. That issue is differed to the States respectively via the 10th Amendment.

The Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms - but NOT to minors. The Constitution guarantees the right to privacy - but NOT to minors. And on and on. A child is NOT equal to an adult by no means.

You are poorly misinformed and in turn, misinforming those who read what you write. Where does the the Second Amendment bar minors from their Second Amendment rights? What you are peddling is "civil rights" and not the noted inalienable Rights of being human. Does a child not have the Right to defend themselves? To speak? To write what they wish? To pursue religion how they see fit? To no incriminate themselves? To not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So, the correct way to address the problem is to allow mob rule instead of addressing the actual issue which has nothing to do with what flag everyone is wearing on what day?

Another reason we live in the governmental system we do is to protect the rights of the minority. In this case, the Anglo students are the minority, and they are being told to sit down and shut up ... go in the closet so to speak.

So I guess the message is "Welcome to America where you can be proud to be anything and everything ... except American."

I find that highly ironic considering that Cinco de Mayo is in this country more of a celebration of our citizens of Hispanic heritage. It's sort of like us rolling out the welcome mat to those of us who have that heritage and embracing them. Both flags should be displayed proudly.

I understand the history behind Cinco de Mayo, but that's not what it's celebrated for here in this country. Here it's celebrated much like St. Patrick's Day where we eat things that aren't even really authentic Irish as a traditional meal but an Americanized idealization of Irish fare.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


What the Constitution states, and how the law based on the Constitution is interpreted, are not necessarily the same. Word semantics. My meaning was clear when taken into context, even if I didn't state it specifically in that one sentence excerpt you choose to make your point.

The words of that document must be coupled with the intent, and the interpretation. When that is added to historical context, as applied to children (remember we are NOT discussing the denial of rights to adults, but those not yet of the age of responsibility) it becomes clear that children do not necessarily have all of the rights afforded to adults.

And you didn't name the song and artist....no star for you.