Do school uniforms violate the 1st ammendment?

[qwerty]

No.

[ilikeverin]

No...

[John Dibble]

I don't like them, but no.

[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.)

[ilikeverin]

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

[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.

[Nation]

  But I do know if my kid sh**ts all over your lawn, I ought to bear some responsibility for that.  

If your kid sh**s over my lawn, then you've got bigger problems than school uniforms!

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Absolutely.  Kids are restricted enough by law, at least let them dress the way they want!  I don't consider forcing someone to wear a certain outfit very American.  

[Bandit3 the Worker]

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.

[John Dibble]

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

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

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.  

[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?

[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.

[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?

[David S]

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?

[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.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Unless you're a hardcore leftist authoritarian,

"Leftist authoritarian" is an oxymoron.

[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]

[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.

[The Dowager Mod]

No.

[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.

[Akno21]

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

[Posterity]

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

A federal law dictating a certain dress code would certainly be unconstitutional (since the constitution does not authorize the federal government to regulate the attire of citizens).  A state law may or may not be constitutional -- it depends on the what the state constitution says.

I would assume that a government-controlled school would not have the right to impose a dress code.  Although, I think it's a moot point because the whole idea of government-controlled schools is antithetical to the principals of a free society.

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 constitutional, but not in a publik skool.

I voted 'yes' in the poll because I assume the OP was referring to publik skools.

[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.

[Schmitz in 1972]

I completely agree with TexArcana, so far in your short time in the forum your posts have been good and intelligent. Personally I don't like uniforms in public schools because it isn't right for a school to exert that much influence on their students.