dont wear american flags on mexico's holiday

[Dleg]

Well then you'd better turn in your guns, since that pesky bill of rights no longer applies to you.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Immigration control is the function of the federal government, not the states.

Yeah, but if the feds aren't doing their job, and it is to the detriment of the states, I think the state has the right to enforce the federal laws.

They do it for drugs all the time.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

The Constitution does not grant rights to citizens. It puts limits on the power of the Federal Government.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Well, it did until the feds stretched the interstate commerce clause far beyond anything the founders probably intended.

 

[Road Guy]

actually i was wrong it wasnt congress that said we had to educate kids here illegally it was the supreme court, it be nice if congress would do some work to overturn that one...

 

[Dexman PE]

Back to the original topic:

A friend from highschool and I have been debating this over the last couple of days. She is mad they got sent home for wearing the US flag, but I've been trying to explain to her that the kids were really being sent home for picking a fight.

Think about it: If any of us were caught in high school picking a fight and the other person was getting mad/upset, we would be sent to the principals office. If we then continued to pick said fight or told the principal we would refuse to stop, we would be sent home. It was the principals job in this situation to stop the conflict in the best way he saw fit, whether it meant that these 5 kids change their clothes, get sent home, and/or if the other person(s) involved should be sent home/punished. The ONLY reason there is any controversy with this is the fact that the US flag was being used as the catalyst to start the fight. Yes, what they did was NOT illegal, nor is wearing the American flag on a shirt or bandana against any school rules, but they were involved with a fight and refusing to follow the principals decision to mitigate the fight, which IS against school rules. If I was the principal at this school, I would have sent them home too. I would have explained to both the kids and their parents (as well as put together a press release if needed) that they were in trouble for picking a fight and refusing to stand down. No more, no less. It's a school; a place to learn, not a political soapbox.

Additionally, this just illustrates the importance of knowing the context and intent behind a situation before jumping to a conclusion/opinion. I can call Chuck a redneck, but depending on the context it can mean many different things, whether I was pissed and was using it in a derogitory manner or just playing around and using it sarcastically. But if RG comes in mid-conversation and sees that I called Chuck a redneck and RG is not aware we were just playing around, I could get in trouble and banned for it (not that he would ban me for that, but you get the point).

 

[mizzoueng]

I think the kids were using the flag as a catalyst. But at the same time, the students that were to be "offended" by them wearing the US flag should be spoken too. They are all US citizens (or should be) and live in America. If they are offended by the US flag, even if worn on a holiday that has been reduced to a excuse to go out and drink margaritas, they should be educated that the flag they are offended by is the symbol of the reason they are allowed in the country.

This country has been reduced to a steaming pile of ultra liberal super-emotional pansies.

 

[Dexman PE]

Getting "offended" has become so en vogue its stupid, just like the "I'll sue you if you don't do what I want" phase was back in the 90's.

 

[FLBuff PE]

Getting "offended" has become so en vogue its stupid, just like the "I'll sue you if you don't do what I want" phase was back in the 90's.

We're out of that phase?

 

[Dexman PE]

Getting "offended" has become so en vogue its stupid, just like the "I'll sue you if you don't do what I want" phase was back in the 90's.

We're out of that phase?

Not so much that we're out of that phase, but more like that phase has morphed into "I'll sue you because I'm offended"

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Getting "offended" has become so en vogue its stupid, just like the "I'll sue you if you don't do what I want" phase was back in the 90's.

We're out of that phase?

No.

 

[benbo]

If any of us were caught in high school picking a fight and the other person was getting mad/upset, we would be sent to the principals office. If we then continued to pick said fight or told the principal we would refuse to stop, we would be sent home. It was the principals job in this situation to stop the conflict in the best way he saw fit, whether it meant that these 5 kids change their clothes, get sent home, and/or if the other person(s) involved should be sent home/punished. The ONLY reason there is any controversy with this is the fact that the US flag was being used as the catalyst to start the fight.

So who makes this determination that they were trying to start a fight? All they were doing was wearing a certain innocuous piece of clothing. It's not like they are saying rude things to the other kids (which, by the way, I'm sure probably happens every day at high school, probably on the football field). If I wear something, and a group of kids is so unruly they can't control their physical response to what I am wearing, it's those kids who have a problem. What if some kids came up to the principal and said they were offended the Mexicans were celebrating Cinco de Mayo, they took it as a challenge or an incitement. Should the Mexican kids be sent home then? I doubt the principal would have the cajones for this unless he wanted Al Sharpton camping out at his school. Should a student be sent home every time he or she wears something that offends another kid's "delicate sensibilities." It's time for all these kids to man up and learn to accept differing points of view. Punish them when they actually DO something worth punishing.

OR ALTERNATIVELY

If you don't feel you can control your student body, then set explicit rules ahead of time and enforce them universally. If you aren't allowed to wear clothing that might provoke somebody, institute a fair dress code. Don't make an ex post facto rule specifically against American flags merely because a certain group of students doesn't like them. I am certain kids wear things and actually DO things every day that offend other kids. But those kids bite their tongue, and concentrate on what they are supposed to. Oh, and if you can't control your student body as a principal without banishing kids for wearing the flag, time to give up your 6 figure salary and let somebody else have a try.

 

[benbo]

^^^

And let me add. If these days wearing an inappropriate item of clothing constitutes provoking a fight we're really raising a bunch of mamby-pamby wimps. When I was at high school kid we started a fight by snapping somebody with a wet towel in the lockerroom, telling somebody you did their sister and she wasn't very good, asking somebody to meet you by the bike racks, or just hauling off and htting them.

 

[Dleg]

The Constitution does not grant rights to citizens. It puts limits on the power of the Federal Government.

Huh?? Once again, why are people so eager to dismiss the Amendments to the Constitution?

from: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html ://http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/ch...n_history.html

The Bill of Rights
The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.

A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to the new government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."

By the fall of 1788 Madison had been convinced that not only was a bill of rights necessary to ensure acceptance of the Constitution but that it would have positive effects. He wrote, on October 17, that such "fundamental maxims of free Government" would be "a good ground for an appeal to the sense of community" against potential oppression and would "counteract the impulses of interest and passion."

Madison's support of the bill of rights was of critical significance. One of the new representatives from Virginia to the First Federal Congress, as established by the new Constitution, he worked tirelessly to persuade the House to enact amendments. Defusing the anti-Federalists' objections to the Constitution, Madison was able to shepherd through 17 amendments in the early months of the Congress, a list that was later trimmed to 12 in the Senate. On October 2, 1789, President Washington sent to each of the states a copy of the 12 amendments adopted by the Congress in September. By December 15, 1791, three-fourths of the states had ratified the 10 amendments now so familiar to Americans as the "Bill of Rights."

Benjamin Franklin told a French correspondent in 1788 that the formation of the new government had been like a game of dice, with many players of diverse prejudices and interests unable to make any uncontested moves. Madison wrote to Jefferson that the welding of these clashing interests was "a task more difficult than can be well conceived by those who were not concerned in the execution of it." When the delegates left Philadelphia after the convention, few, if any, were convinced that the Constitution they had approved outlined the ideal form of government for the country. But late in his life James Madison scrawled out another letter, one never addressed. In it he declared that no government can be perfect, and "that which is the least imperfect is therefore the best government."

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Uh, Dleg, your link, and the bolded parts that you quoted, just prove my point. The anti-Federalists *wanted* the Constitution to grant rights to the people, but the rights of the people ended up being delegated to the state constitutions. If the bill of rights actually gave rights to individuals, then why is it not worded that "Citizens have the right to free speech, religion, press, etc." instead of "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."? Everything is worded as a limitation on government, not as specific rights granted to citizens.

 

[Capt Worley PE]

This is why school uniforms are probably a good idea...