Do school uniforms violate the 1st ammendment?

[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

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.

Note the

NOTE THE

[Bandit3 the Worker]

A private school could do whatever they wanted in terms of dress code or uniform

It may be legal, but still it's stupid.

[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

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Unless you're a hardcore leftist authoritarian,

"Leftist authoritarian" is an oxymoron.

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

Well, it certainly wasn't very communist.

[freedomburns]

The USSR was not at all an example of communism.  It was a model of centralized, state-directed capitalism and it failed miserably.

freedomburns

[Nym90]

I don't believe that they violate the 1st Amendment, but I do strongly oppose them.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

Now that we've established that everyone hates uniforms, why do uniforms continue to be required in some American public schools?

Even in a school with only a few hundred students, you'd think you'd find at least ONE[/i] student who completely resists any attempt to be forced into compliance. In the past couple years I don't think I've heard of ANYONE[/i] anywhere in America standing up for their rights.

[they don't love you like i love you]

In public schools yes.

School uniforms are pure evil. They are ALWAYS ALWAYS wrong. Evil and fascist.

[KEmperor]

The USSR was not at all an example of communism.  It was a model of centralized, state-directed capitalism and it failed miserably.

freedomburns

Centralized, state-directed capitalism is an oxymoron.

[Josh/Devilman88]

YES... Hehe I hate uniforms.. let kids wear what they want. If the school don't like it the forget them!

[migrendel]

This is actually somewhat complex in terms of a Constitutional issue. For your style of dress to be a form of speech, it would have to have expressive content. But since so many young people chose their clothes to indicate personal preferences and affiliations with various subcultures, and we often project who we are through our costume, I will be willing to give those truly thoughtless and content-free ensembles some among us sport the benefit of the doubt and say school uniforms do violate the First Amendment.

But the Constitution aside, uniforms are truly ridiculous as a matter of policy. It is indeed a peculiarly obnoxious concept of equality that would force us to dress alike to satisfy the need of some poorly clad children not to feel inferior. There are very few things it would not sacrifice to make sure that all of our people are treated fairly and equally, but the right to make personal life choices, choices as basic as what you wish to wear, is one of those things I insist must be preserved.

[muon2]

One of the mothers in town in favor of school uniforms, gave this reasoning: As a child her mother wouldn't get her fashionable clothes, and it wasn't an economic issue. She was left out of social groups and felt that appearance had something to do with that. her feeling is that children would be better socially if there wasn't differentiation based on clothes, but instead on interests.

I don't agree, but that sentiment does exist. I am prone to let the parents decide what dress codes should be for the children at their school.

[muon2]

When the parents at one school did approve uniforms, the key issue was gang affiliation. There were street gangs influencing some of the older grade school kids (ages 10-12), and attempts to control clothes to limit gang colors weren't working, so the parents voted for uniforms.

[David S]

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.

I think TexArcana nailed this one. Very nicely stated.

[migrendel]

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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

One of the mothers in town in favor of school uniforms, gave this reasoning: As a child her mother wouldn't get her fashionable clothes, and it wasn't an economic issue. She was left out of social groups and felt that appearance had something to do with that. her feeling is that children would be better socially if there wasn't differentiation based on clothes, but instead on interests.

I don't agree, but that sentiment does exist. I am prone to let the parents decide what dress codes should be for the children at their school.

Kid still will wear them how ever they want to... girls will wear there skirts shor and guy will wear there pants big.. gangs will still make up some stupid way to wear their's. So all you have done was WASTE YOUR TIME.

[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.

[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.  

[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.

[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.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

As a child her mother wouldn't get her fashionable clothes, and it wasn't an economic issue. She was left out of social groups and felt that appearance had something to do with that. her feeling is that children would be better socially if there wasn't differentiation based on clothes, but instead on interests.

This is a problem created by large clothing manufacturers and retail chains hawking their awful wares.

The local newspaper has a habit of praising school uniforms on its editorial page and in its so-called "news" articles. Often they run a front-page editorial disguised as "news" in which they only interview people who support uniforms. One excuse used by the newspaper to try to justify uniforms is that uniforms supposedly make things easier for poor families who can't afford the latest fashions.

Yet this same newspaper constantly carries ads by store chains pitching all the latest fashions to kids!

It's a case of first-class hypocrisy by the good ol' Republican-leaning Kentucky Post.

[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.

[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.

[nclib]

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

Businesses = private
Public schools = public