Students Kicked Off Campus for Wearing American Flag Tees

[classicman]

I wonder which Asst Principal it was - Miguel Rodriguez or Kim Lemos

[TheMercenary]

SO a minor gets arrested. Does he have a right to not answer questions and incriminate himself?

[TheMercenary]

SO a thug 16 yr old has no right to Lawyer up?

[TheMercenary]

So a 17 yo can't refuse a consent to a search or questioning without a Lawyer present?

[lookout123]

If a kid can wear a shirt with a mexican flag to school then a kid can also wear a shirt with an american flag on it. It doesn't matter why they wore it because then you are talking about thoughts, not actions.

[TheMercenary]

I still say they should sue the fuck out of that school, just to make a point.

My money is that they would eventually settle out of court because they know they screwed up.

[TheMercenary]

No really. I want to hear why you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

Your chance to shine. GO!

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

No really. I want to hear why you want to give and support Constitutional Rights to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

Your chance to shine. GO!

I agree with the Supreme Court decisions affirming limited rights for illegals (and detainees)....I have never suggested they should have absolute and unlimited rights

Please link any post of mine where I said anything other than the above about "rights" for illegals or detainees.

You were the one who said they had NO rights....that the Constitution was ONLY for citizens.

I also agree with court decisions affirming that the Constitutional rights of minors are not absolute and can be restricted or limited in a manner that would not apply to adult citizens.

[SamIam]

Gosh, am I the only one who remembers those wild days when students (white) would wear flags embroidered on their ass and various other anatomical parts. Where I went to school, a girl had the bright idea to make a bikini out of the flag. They arrested the flag burners, but I don't know what they did to the wearers. I also rented an apartment for a while where the previous residents painted a large flag on the kitchen wall and stenciled a marijuana leaf over the top of the flag. For anyone who remembers history, the current hoopla is really nothing much.

Sorry, folks, for the distraction.

But I dont intend to let personal attacks and false allegations go unanswered.

Merc...anytime you want to have a moderated discussion on the Constitution, just let me know.....no name calling, no "fails"...

Just you and me...and a moderator (UT) to keep it civil and focused.

[TheMercenary]

Another epic Fail...

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Another epic Fail...

The facts and the posts ( link and link) are there for all to see.

I said illegals should not have the same rights as citizens...you said the Constitution is only for citizens.

Who failed?

Let the people...or just the citizens decide.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

I said illegals should not have the same rights as citizens...you said the Constitution is only for citizens.

Who failed?

You did. Illegals only have limited Rights.

[TheMercenary]

Here is a great example.

Here’s the answer no administrator likes to hear: It depends.

If school officials can reasonably forecast that wearing the Confederate flag will lead to a substantial disruption of the school environment, then they can probably ban it.

For example, a 2000 decision out of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the suspension of a middle school student for drawing a picture of a Confederate flag. Why? Because the school district could point to past incidents of racial tension and violence as evidence that the flag would likely cause substantial disruption. The school’s policy didn’t target the Confederate symbol, but banned all “racially divisive” materials.

But a 2001 decision out of the 6th Circuit went the other way, finding that the school district banning the flag had failed to show that the flag would cause significant problems for the school. Moreover, the school policy appeared not to apply evenhandedly to other racially divisive symbols.

The “substantial disruption” test used in these cases comes from a 1969 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. In Tinker, students were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Ruling in favor of the students, the Court declared that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/....aspx?id=13464

Sorry it does not support your giving rights to to Illegals, suspected Terrorists, and Enemy Combatants but not to students who are completely legal.

[TheMercenary]

The principal of Madison County High School suspended Timothy Castorina and Tiffany Dargavell in September 1997 for refusing to comply with the school's dress code.

Castorina and Dargavell wore Hank Williams Jr. concert T-shirts to school on two occasions. The shirts bore two Confederate flags on the back with the phrase "Southern Thunder."

The principal said the shirts violated the school's dress code policy, which prohibited clothing with "any illegal, immoral or racist implication." The principal ordered the students to either go home and change shirts or wear them inside out. When the students refused, he gave them three-day suspensions.

After the suspensions, the students wore the shirts again and received another three-day suspension. The students later withdrew from the school and were home-schooled by their parents.

After their suspensions, the two students sued in federal court, contending a violation of their First Amendment rights. They argued that by wearing the T-shirts, they communicated their support for Hank Williams and southern heritage.

They also alleged that the school principal discriminated on the basis of viewpoint by allowing other students to wear Malcolm X clothing.

In 1998, a federal district court judge dismissed their lawsuit, finding that their wearing of the shirts did not constitute expressive conduct under the First Amendment.

Castorina appealed the decision to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 8, a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit reversed in Castorina v. Madison County School Board.

The appeals court panel first determined that the students did engage in speech by wearing the shirts.

Next, the panel reinstated the suit, finding that the case was similar to the classic U.S. Supreme Court decision Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In Tinker, the high court ruled that Iowa school officials violated the First Amendment rights of several students by suspending them for wearing black armbands to school to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

In Tinker, the high court noted that the school officials singled out black armbands and allowed students to wear other symbols. The court determined that school officials could not censor student-initiated speech unless they could reasonably forecast that the speech would cause a substantial disruption of the school environment.

The 6th Circuit panel ruled that the actions of Madison County High School officials gave "the appearance of a targeted ban" because other students were allowed to wear clothing with the "X" symbol.

The judges said that the case would have to be sent back to the lower court for further fact finding, including:

How the school enforced its dress code; and
"Whether Madison County High School had actually experienced any racially based violence prior to the suspensions."
"The defendants do claim that prior to the plaintiffs' suspension, there was a racially based altercation on school grounds, but plaintiffs contend that race was not the cause of the disturbance," the court wrote. "This disagreement simply highlights the need for a trial to determine the precise facts of this situation."

Kirk Lyons, chief trial counsel for the Southern Legal Resource Center and one of Castorina's attorneys, praised the ruling.

"We were very pleased to see the 6th Circuit thunderously affirm Tinker," Lyons said. "Our concern was that various school boards were acting as if Tinker did not exist. To our knowledge this stands as the first pro-speech decision by a federal appeals court that involves a student wearing Confederate flag clothing. "

http://www.freedomforum.org/template...cumentID=13373