Texas AG ignores constitutional law and expells a high school student over the Pledge of Allegiance.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Ken Paxton is using this as a political stunt to rally his ignorant supporters who are too stupid to understand constitutional law or even google SCOTUS decisions. Not standing for the pledge has been a right since the 1940s. He is unfit for office because he is ignoring the settled law and trampling on her rights as a way to pander to voters.
Since 1943, the law has been clear that public school students cannot be forced to recite or otherwise participate in the Pledge of Allegiance against their will. In the case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court found that the right to remain silent during the Pledge of Allegiance stems from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Just as the First Amendment protects our right to express our beliefs, it prohibits the government from compelling us to declare a belief that we do not hold. As the Barnette court wrote, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”
Sept. 26 (UPI) -- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has intervened to oppose a teenage student who sued her school for expelling her for refusing to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
The lawsuit was filed last year by then-17-year-old India Landry after she was expelled by the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District, near Houston. Landry claims the expulsion violated her First Amendment rights, while the school district argues it has the right to compel a child to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance under state law.
Paxton has filed an intervention to side with the Cypress-Fairbanks Independent School District.
"Requiring the pledge to be recited at the start of every school day has the laudable result of fostering respect for our flag and a patriotic love of our country," Paxton said in a statement . "This case is about providing for the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance while respecting the parental right to direct the education of children. The district court should uphold the Education Code and the right of parents to determine whether their children will recite the Pledge of Allegiance."
Landry's attorney, Randall L.Kallinen, told the Houston Chronicle that it's rare for Paxton to intervene in cases and said his motive is likely not for patriotic love.
"The reason he's challenging this case is that it's election time," Kallinen said. "It's an attempt to rally the troops."
Paxton is up for re-election in November.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
422 visitors
The right to refuse to take part in the Pledge of Allegiance has been settled constitutional law since 1943's West Virginia Board of Ed v. Barnette.
Yep. And it doesn't cost Paxton a penny.
This is partisan nonsense and I hope that this girl goes after her school board and Paxton for their nonsense. They are playing with her life for their personal goals.
The school board should have known better because this is a very obvious First Amendment case. I wonder if the members of the board are also seeking re-election?
I learned this shit in elementary school when the JW kids left the classroom after roll. I guess it doesn't take much to pass the bar in texas.
I can't think of any bar in Texas I passed.
I couldn't find any bars in Texas. I must have been in the wrong part of Texas.
All my ex's live in Texas.
No surprise that Texas thinks it's own state laws trump the Constitution or the SCOTUS.
The stupid is strong in that state. They still think that they are a republic unto themselves and the federal constitution is only a suggestion that they can ignore as they see fit.
Once we accept the idea that they don't give a flying F**K about the law... it's much easier to understand...
“School children cannot unilaterally refuse to participate in the pledge,”
“The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parents have a fundamental interest in guiding the education and upbringing of their children, which is a critical aspect of liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.”
he is not very bright... all he had to do was get his parents to write a note,
he cannot sue the school if his parent's wanted him to stand for the pledge.
if the parents did not file a opt out? the state can call them as witnesses for the defense.
unless his parents filed the opt-out and that was ignored by the school???
(an opt-out provision exists, but was ignored by the plaintiff)
case dismissed in favor of the state.
cheers
Taking part in the pledge is not an act of education.
the parent could have written a simple note and her kid would have been opted out no problem.
the state can not be sued for the parents lack of action.
in case ya missed it...
Immaterial. The school cannot compel a student to recite the Pledge if they refuse to do so. So the school clearly violated the student's constitutional rights.
We don't have to ask to exercise our free speech rights. Federal law trumps state law because of the US Constitution'ssupremacyy clause, so Texas cannot change a SCOTUS ruling.
not according to the 11th circuit court of appeals. and im going to take their word over yours.... just sayin.
but, lets say the 5th circuit ignores that precedent and this case goes to the supreme court due to conflicting lower court rulings....
how do you think justice kavanaugh will vote?
Are you admitting that Kavanaugh opposes protecting personal freedom over mandating public acts of allegiance to the state? That opinion would be quite fascist, but Republicans seem to like that sort of thing.
nope.. too wordy and mellow dramatic.
id simply say...
parents have the right to determine their child's education.
and, patriotism is on the curriculum in texas
parents can opt out.
do the children have a right to determine their education? when they are 18 or older, yes..
it will be a fun case to watch
Students being forced to pledge allegiance to the state is not an act of education. That is an act of brainwashing that most rational people oppose. She is a high school senior so she is 18.
BTW. It's melodramatic.
I think parents retain the right to have their kids be taught some respect for our flag.
any parent that does not agree? can simply opt out.
"the state is forcing nothing"
Why should anyone respect a piece of cloth? Patriotism is a tribal emotion that only causes problems, so why do you endorse it being taught? Personal freedom and protected autonomy are superior to patriotism and allegiance to the state.
that is an easy one.
because it represents our country
we love our country.
we rally behind that flag
and we will die for what that flag represents.
so tell me straight up.. who are you... would you give your life in defense of this country?
You do realize that a SCOTUS decision outweighs a circuit court ruling, right?
im thinking the texas attorney general understands supreme court rulings and how it affects this case just a little bit better than you do... just sayin.
Apparently not. But considering its Texas, it doesn't come as a surprise either.
The flag is just a piece of cloth.
Just sayin . . .
show me that supreme court case that states in plain english that minors can decide what they will be taught in school?
if a school teaches patriotism and there is an opt-out for parents who disagree with patriotism... no harm, no foul, no case.
Read the article! The issue isn't about what's being taught. It's about a student being compelled to stand for and recite the Pledge. And epistte already cited the landmark SCOTUS case which dealt with that issue in her first post 1 above.
Any student is already free not to participate in forced displays of reactionary nationalism, no matter what Texas policy states.
Seriously, Texas must be at least 75 years behind the times on all constitutional issues.
I would fight to defend the the freedoms of the US Constitution, but I would not expend a single calorie to defend the Trump/GOP government. I understand the oath that says "to defend the constitution from all all enemiies, foreign and domestic".
Fine, then they can recite the pledge all day long.........AT HOME.
would you give your life in defense of this country?
Your idol sure wouldn't. He has already proved that.
that parent is not very bright either.... also notice how the linked article skipped this tidbit?
inspired by protesters? but could not write a simple note?
no case here... move along.
Getting a note from one's parents negates the "value" of a "silent protest".
When India's mother arrived to pick her up, after being expelled one day last year, the principal yelled at Mrs. Landry telling her "She can't come to my school if she won't stand for the pledge."
Doesn't sound like the principal knows Texas law either.
inspired by protesters? but could not write a simple note?
Kettle/pot
I say get rid of the pledge entirely, it is pointless.
It's not only pointless but it's dangerous because it encourages a tribal idea and creates a us vs. them mentality. Why would any rational person want to pledge their allegiance to a government? I thought that the government was supposed to serve and protect the rights of the people?
government and country are two separate things. but that us vs them thing? count on it.
we own this country and we have the power to throw out our govt and build a new one anytime we decide it is needed.
remember way back when? 2016 somewhere around nov 8th - an epic day in history...
we removed liberal power/government in our white house and we kept our country.
and it was predictable... patriots will always win in the end.
The US Constitution or our rights do not require a cloth banner to exist. The flag and patriotism are shallow emotions that appeal to the ignorant and the easily swayed. I have the protected right to burn the flag as political protest and the free speech rights to speak out against the government, even if it offends your conservative opinions. Those who oppose the basic freedoms are the problem because they only support the rights/actions if they agree with the message being voiced. That idea is intrinsically wrong because those rights of the Constitution exist to protect the equal rights of the minority even if it is only one person from being trampled by the actions of popular majority and the politically powerful.
[ Removed ]
I missed another juicy reply that suffered death by purple ink.
You cannot and should not force patriotism.
Not in a democratic republic like the United States, anyway.
If you live in Russia or China you can
True and you can not stop it either. Unfortunately for many here, that knife cuts both ways.
that is simply not going to happen, but your free to "say" what ya like.
like it or not, patriotism is making a come back.
we understand why socialist/anarchists do not like patriotism.
yet, strangely enough, we simply do not care what the left wants.
BTW: your right when you say trump does not represent you.
trump only represents patriots.
cheers
Trump never served a day in his life and he attacks those who did, while he heaps praise on a brutal Russian dictator. If that is what conservative patriotistm is then I want no part of it.
Funny, I never had to take the pledge when I joined the Army, I did swear an oath to protect and, defend the CONSTITUTION but, not the flag, I don't remember that being in the oath so, are you trying to say that a vet isn't a patriot?
[deleted]
When did "learning patriotism" (sounds reminiscent of Nazi Germany) require standing and reciting the Pledge? That's what the issue is really about.
Why would any rational person want to "learn patriotism"?
Pledging allegiance to a state or the government is a fascist action.
calling patriots fascists? is an anarchist action. and that behavior had more than a bit to do with why "she" lost in 2016
but hey, you have fun with that.
do not stop calling us fascists until after 2020 ok? im begging you to work with me on this
funnier... I never said one had to say the pledge to join the army.
cheers
trump only represents patriots.
He only represents himself and he is no patriot.
RUMP REPRESENTS RUMP. That's it!
yea.... you keep saying that but trump is doing exactly what we voted for him to do.
no one is buying the progressive anarchist bs anymore.
so don't get upset if I ignore your interpretation of things.
cheers
I took a pledge when I joined the Army, just not the pledge that is the topic.
Funny...neither did I when joined the Air Force. I guess we're not patriots, then, eh?
LOL, that would be news to my family.
Oh, you mean destroy the United States? Nice job.
trump is not destroying the united states.
he is destroying all the socialist / anarchist dreams.
everyone else is having the time of our lives.
patriots never have a problem with the pledge of allegiance. anarchists do as they only pretend they are patriots.
in this country, the true patriots will always win.
we stand for the pledge, will only kneel to pray and then we will run over all who stand in our way.
when someone has to hide their face for a political event? that is the first clue they are on the wrong side.
unlike anarchists, we get to stand in the sunshine and not hide our faces
You can leave the thread now because running people over is not permitted.
What about people who physically can not stand? Are you going to run over them also.
It's wonderful that you love this country please try to remember you are not the only one(s). I'd say most people living in America want it to do better, not many agree on what that means though.
Unfortunately the desire to work together I believe the forefathers had, we no longer do. Now the constitution is used more to push agendas and fight with the opposition that a document respected for the principals it brought forth.
On both sides !
Not even those whose religion prohibits them from saying the Pledge?
Not for you to say.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that pledging to anything other than Jehovah is idolatry. There is no reason that they should be forced to either participate in or endorse idolatry.
Why should people be forced to stand for a pledge? Where is their right not to take part in the pledge, as is the basic concept of freedom.
of course.
in other words,
there will be no peace while progressives are running the dnc.
they want us to back down... we never will
patriots win
meanwhile... do you have your popcorn?
this month is going to be very interesting indeed,
there will be much screeching and howling from the left
music to my ears
there will be much screeching and howling from the left
music to my ears
LOL@U
That's the only way I can take people who advocate for, enjoy and desire division of Americans.
So, Sad !
IMO: Also very unpatriotic.
To each their own.
This is another conservative lie.
When was the last time that Trump and the GOP condemned Neo-nazis and their violence? Trump praises brutal dictators as strong leaders. Is that the current GOP idea of small government and freedom?
Oh, you mean like the Founding Fathers had? Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, equal rights for everyone. Those dreams?
Watching the destruction of the foundation of America of course.
I remember a woman who was at a John Kerry rally I attended when he ran for president, she stood outside the rally area putting down everyone who was entering to hear Senator Kerry claiming that they weren't patriots because, they were going to listen to Kerry, when she tried to tell ME that I wasn't a patriot I advised her to learn what the meaning of patriotism is before saying that about someone she didn't know, I'm now advising you to do the same.
Yes, we will.
When I joined the Army, I took a pledge then and, I stand by that pledge I took then, it means more to me than the pledge you are talking about because it is about defending the Constitution and, the country against all enemy's, foreign and, domestic.
That isn't the case in a lot of political events, I've never hidden my face, I stand by what was said by Patrick Henry. If you wish to learn anything about what it is to be truly American then you need to learn first what it is America truly stands for.
Again, you have forgotten or, never knew what our founders stood for and, you need to go back and, learn what it was that they truly stood for, then maybe, just maybe, you will understand what I stand for.
Of course you can voice your opinion.
Your opinion doesn't seem to be in favor of religious rights. Those whose religion advises them not to stand are folks you won't stand for.
bring down a culture while hiding behind the flag...
mental masturbation for anarchists and straight out of the communist playbook
todays left can not say they support those things when:
the list of leftwing hypocrisy goes further, but in short...
the actions of the left only betray their words.
didja know, the communist playbook of using govt to silence opposition is nothing new... hiding behind the flag while doing it is nothing new either.
that communist playbook also includes using our money to fund division among our people
but seriously... the past ten yrs was fun to watch but it was nothing compared to what's coming.
AKA: The Numbing
the founding fathers would have joined the "tea party" and kicked "antifa" ass.
Where is the proof of that claim?
no one I know even knows any of these neo-nazi's you speak of and if I could find them I would take their shoes off their feet like I do with antifa so obviously I do not support nazi's of any flavor.
Being opposed to fascism is the default choice of rational people. You apparently support fascism.
your bs is denied.
fascists try to silence opposing views.
it is their hallmark trading card.
I will die for the lefts right to not stand for our flag but they do not get to be called patriots.
patriotism is not a part time or intermittent thing, it is 24/7 all 365
perhaps if you go burn a flag it might cheer you up
You don't have to be personally acquainted with neo-Nazis to be a neo-Nazi fellow-traveler.
If a person supports the same ideas - for example the supremacy of the White race - then that person is a fellow-traveler.
So it's quite possible for a person to be a neo-Nazi fellow-traveler, while condemning neo-Nazis.
'in this country, the true patriots will always win. we stand for the pledge, will only kneel to pray and then we will run over all who stand in our way.'
Like at the Charlottesville rally? I get it
Just sayin . . .
'Trump praises brutal dictators as strong leaders. Is that the current GOP idea of small government and freedom?'
Did you hear the latest? Rump and Kim Jong-Un fell in love.
I see I'm not the only one who saw that and thought the same thing
Why should people be forced to stand during the pledge? Are you insulted when people choose not to take part in the pledge?
That sounds more like the Right than the Left. Who's been claiming to love the flag and, the pledge and, at the same time trying to undermine the freedoms the Constitution guarantees? I think that would be the current POTUS and, last I checked he was a Republican.
LOL, you do know that the Founders were, GASP, leftists don't you?
Nah, the Founders would probably have been standing with Antifa in Austin, the people who would have stood with you would have been the Tory's, you know, the people who defended England's rule over the colony's.
This is something that scares me when I read it because, it says that you might be hoping for something to happen that will push the country further towards a separation of the country, like you are hoping for another Civil War in this country.
In its original form, its not so bad.
" I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"
It took nearly 70 years before religious conservatives unceremoniously inserted their God.
And who wrote the original pledge?
"The Pledge of Allegiance, as it exists in its current form, was composed in August 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist , and the cousin of socialist utopian novelist Edward Bellamy (1850–1898)."
"As a socialist, he had initially also considered using the words equality and fraternity but decided against it, knowing that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans."
I bet that fact really chaps livefreeordie's hide...
rump represents himself - his big fat ugly self - and no one else.
Just sayin . . .
he is doing exactly what we voted for him to do. we do not expect you to like it.
if we thought the left was, or ever could be happy with trump? we never would have elected him.... simple.
we elected a wrecking ball -
trump is the greatest F-U ever given to the political establishment in the history of our country
He's certainly the greatest FU to America in the history of the country.
How is less than the majority if the voting public endorsing a racist sexual predator, a liar, a sociopathic narcissist and a failed businessman, who is shockingly ignorant of basic facts and the English language and who has a penchant for endorsing authoritarian leaders at the expense of our own allies a patriotic act?
It is far more likely that Trump is a mirror image of the MAGAites who voted for him.
So, you admit that you want to bring down our Democracy and, destroy the United States. Good to see were your loyalty's lie Comrade.
nope.
your states "democracy is safe enough and our country ( "the republic" ) is in safe hands as well...
we are only crushing the liberal world order.
enjoy
only about half the country....
the rest of us sent that F-U to those who were "with her" as well
was that message received five by five?
and the more the left complains the more we know trump is doing his job.
What is the "liberal world order" that you are referring to?
[deleted]
Really? Half the country? Only about 35% of Americans support Trump and, that has been consistent since he was elected so, where are the other 15% of the country at that support him?
still believing those polls huh? OK then.... LOL
In spite of the sad fact that Trump won the election because of the electoral college he still lost the popular vote by 3 million votes and, the number of people who don't want him in the White House or, want checks on him grows every day, his popularity is only among Republicans and, those that no longer want to support his maniacal ways are leaving the party and, either becoming Independents or, Democrats.
so what... the USA is not a democracy. it is a republic. that means the majority can piss off.
other than state elections? we actually do not care what the majority thinks... not even a little bit.
And, this is why you aren't going to find yourselves in the "catbird seat" after this election.
so ya say.... and so ya said.
I say.... when it comes to midterms? I promise you are going to hear the word "historic"
Deleted
Since WWII there have been only two times that the party in the White House has held or, gained seats in the Congress, I'd say that I'm sitting pretty good right now as far as a change in control of at least the House after this election.
what we voted for him to do
What's this "WE" shit white man?
You did not elect him. The EC did. I don't get it. You would drink his bath water if he asked you to and then admit that he is the greatest Fk Up ever given to the political establishment in the history of our country.
The EC should not determine who is POTUS, the American people should have that honor. That is why these campaign fund raisers crack me up. It would be more cost effective to send the money directly to the members of the EC and just forego the pretense.
I know that. My point was the use of "What WE voted him to do." It is inaccurate.
try again...
I know this is hard for you to understand but yes....
"we elected trump" the EC voted our states majority opinion in that regard.
and now trump is doing exactly what voted for him to do.
Yep I knew that before he took office. I called it clean up on isles 1,2,3 and 5 and 6 Pronto.
I was not surprised nor disappointed.
But to me electing ONE man to remake America to his desires is paramount to electing a dictator and I wanted no part in that.
Good Luck America !
It's fascinating to me how many Americans have such fervent, angry, vitriolic nastiness about one topic or another and yet possess so little clue about the established governance already in existence.
The young lady does not have to stand for the pledge. It doesn't matter how tightly that winds somebody's clock. This has been well established for decades.
Duh. So why is your AG on the wrong side here?
Very simple. From your far left political perspective, almost all straight, white, middle-aged men with jobs seem like RWNJs.
Paxton actually IS a RWNJ.
Are all straight white middle-aged men in Texas ignorant of the US Constitution? RWNJs tend to be ignorant of the Constitution or they interpret it in the same fundamentalist manner that they interpret the Bible. They seem to be convinced that the US is a country that bestows more rights on WASP men like themselves.
Are all angry leftist women racists?
I don't think Paxton is ignorant of it. I think he's a panderer. Bullshit like this gives him political capital among right wingers that he'll be able to leverage when he runs for his next office.
He's a right wing version of Bernie Sanders, if you will.
They would argue that a WASP kid needs to stand for the pledge, too.
What rights do I support denying to old white religious geezers? Is groping women and kids now a right for WASP men?
Nobody is stopping them from doing it by themselves before school.
Of course.
We elected a President who boasted having done it.
[deleted]
Not at all...
of course, I do get a senior discount, so maybe I no longer qualify for middle-aged...
Since when is that the definition of racism?
You are the person who brought race into the discussion when you accused me of being an angry white racist leftist female.
Do cite where I mentioned your race.
And again, since when is the definition of racism "denying rights"? Your derisory comments are clearly racist. It's not the first time.
You don't need to mention my race (white) when you accused me of being racist.
Correct. But your comments were still racist.
Derogatory comments questioning the intelligence of a group of people based on their race and gender is about as racist as it gets.
Congratulations.
True!
Unless, of course, that group of people proves by their own words and behavior that they are indeed racist morons... which is the case for most trumpsters.
And joining the racism party on que is.......
I think you meant "cue"...
School used to be "important".
School used to be a place were "Adult Authority" meant something.
School used to be a place of learning the (3) three R's only.
Fuck that !
School is now a place to teach "Children" how to "Protest", "Defy" and "Go after Authority" !
School is now a place were parents can have their kids "Baby" sat and require the "School" teaches "Their MINIMAL parental way" or get sued.
Should students be required to submit to adult authority when it's abused?
Should schools be turning out obedient automatons?
Are your questions put forth because you resist "Government" ?
"Public" Schools are government schools after all.
OR
Is it only certain government stuff, that may not fit an ideology, the ones you are worried about.
Is letting kids out of "Public" school to protest the "Lefts" need for "Gun Control" Okay ?
Do you believe that government is always right? Does government exist to rule the people, or is it the other way around? Who's working for whom, here?
AGAIN...….…….
Is it only certain government stuff, that may not fit an ideology, the ones you are worried about ?
Is letting kids out of "Public" school to protest the "Lefts" need for "Gun Control" Okay ?
Why are you so insistent on repeating your questions, I presume to have them answered, when you won't address mine?
Do you want us to teach students about the Constitution, without ever telling them that it applies to them?
Because it's fun to watch a non-answer from someone that is so adamant in their belief.
Again...…....
Is it only certain government stuff, that may not fit an ideology, the ones you are worried about ?
Is letting kids out of "Public" school to protest the "Lefts" need for "Gun Control" Okay ?
Oh, boy, do you have access to a mirror?
There it is AGAIN.
Exactly what I posted about.
Only certain ones.
The ones that don't fit an ideology called "The Constitution".
Yeah....I'm worried about those.
The "Left" thinks the constitution is a "FLOWING", ever changing "River".
I suppose the "Left" hasn't heard of actual "Dams".
Weird.....how Actual "Dams" legally exist.
Should students be required to submit to adult authority when it's abused?
Should schools be turning out obedient automatons?
Just so.
Some on the right (not you) are revealing that they either only think the Constitution applies when they like what is being said (or not said), or that they really have very little knowledge of it at all.
Those are silly things to say.
There’s no monolithic "Left", so expounding on what "the Left" thinks is... silly.
Sorry....should have said "Socialist" ?
It's what is said the "Left" should embrace after all.....by their own folks.
Which came first, the egg or the "Chicken" ?
Answer mine (If you dare).....I'll be more than happy to answer yours AFTER.
I asked first
You answered with questions. And somehow, you equated that to me being evasive. Anyone reading can see the sequence of comments here.
Why do you have a problem with American students exercising their Constitutional rights?
Define "Abused" !
and
Schools are already doing that, based on my original comment that started this thread.
Explain why they aren't, yet you ask "should they" ?
Violating a student's constitutional right not to participate in the Pledge, as an example.
That's NOT "abuse".
Is this "Abuse" ?
"Ohio Student Suspended for Refusing to Leave Classroom During Gun Control Walkout"
Whether it's "abuse" or not is irrelevant. It's still unconstitutional.
Really? Violating the First Amendment isn't abuse? You seem to have a very skewed idea about what constituted abuse.
True, but I would consider it to be an evident abuse of authority.
And yet again....you ignore my link that asks "Was that Abuse".....which isn't any different than what you posted on the "Stand" thingy.
To funny.
To each his/her own I suppose.
No, it was not abuse. He was not forced to join a protest. He simply wasn't allowed to say unattended in a classroom, which is pretty much how school works, ya know? Those who didn't want to join the protest were provided with a supervised classroom, and he could have gone there, but refused to do so.
But he "IS" required to go to school a certain amount of days per year by law, until a certain age, which he wanted to do (Free Speech). He was only following the actual law of the land. Your telling me because a "Government" run School wanted their kiddy's to protest Guns, Yet this kiddy wanted to stay in school, he (the one that wanted to follow the law) was not abused by Adults in Government by being suspended ?
Are you proclaiming that as long as "Government" wants it based on your ideology....… It's Okay 'cause you wanted little kiddy's to protest against guns, but it's not okay to do the same about Standing for the Flag of the United States of America ?
And he was in school. The law was fulfilled.
Why do you think the school wanted kids to protest? I see no indication of such. I see that they provided arrangements to keep safe both protesters and non-protesters during a protest in which students were going to participate.
I'm not the one advocating for authoritarianism here. That's you. You know, the one who thinks that violating a student's First Amendment rights isn't an abuse of authority.
It's not hard to argue it was a violation of his rights.
It's not the school's place to organize a protest or to supervise one at the expense of teaching kids who don't want to protest.
I don't see the school as organizing a protest. They knew one was inevitable, and took actions to keep students safe, as is their duty, when students are on school grounds. They made sure that those not participating also had a safe place to go, on school grounds.
I always thought pep rallies were a stupid use of school time. I really didn't care whether the football team (the only team deemed worthy of a pep rally on a regular basis) won or lost. But most students and administrators wanted a pep rally, so the school made us all go to the gym, and we had a pep rally at the expense of instruction time. Was that abuse to those of us who didn't care about football?
Lots of schools across the country were faced with this situation, and it presents a bit of a dilemma. You're either organizing a political protest, or you're supervising one at the expense of instruction, or you're just continuing on with business as usual and letting the police handle the crowd control....but then you still have the issue of how you respond to the kids cutting class.
Pep rallies, silly as some of them may be, are official school functions, and hopefully not politically biased.
I'm sure it did. It seems to me that the school handled it in a reasonable manner. They are still responsible for student safety, so they made provisions. It seems to me that this was a good teaching moment - our rights to free speech and peaceful assembly, in action.
And no, pep rallies aren't generally politically biased, but they sure are a waste of time, and an enforced one, at that.
[deleted]
The US Constitution must change with the times or it will be useless if it doesn't adapt with the society and technology. It is not and was never meant to be a verbatim listing of our rights. It is a statement of ideas, a protection of our individual rights and a blueprint of how we organize the government. The very fact that the role of the US Supreme Court wasn't defined in the US Constitution but was created by John Jay during the Marbury v. Madison legal crisis is proof that the Constitution is not to be taken word for word. Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, and Adams approved of that role for the court and left it as it was instead of adding an amendment to change the situation. The very concept of personal freedom is the idea that we do not have to ask the government or the socially powerful for permission before we can act. How are you harmed because somebody doesn't want to take part in the Pledge of Allegiance? Do you feel that her action is a threat to your beliefs or because it may offend you?
I don't want to live in an 18th century nation in the 21st century world which is what would happen if we interpret the US Constitution strictly by the time that it was written. The constitutional position of originalism is the legal equivalent of religious fundamentalism where you don't think about what you read but interpret it word for word, until that form of interpretation isn't in their political interests. Then the originalist throws out his past statements and hopes that nobody notices his obvious hypocrisy. The very idea of a constitutional originalist on the US Supreme Court to make a ruling on constitutional interpretation is an oxymoron. If the legal situation in question could have been solved by an originalist reading of the US Constitution then it would not be before the Supremes.
I thought that I was the only person who felt that way. We were threatened with 3 detentions if we tried to slip out the back door and leave instead of attending the silly pep rally.
I played sports in high school, and liked it, but I guess I just didn't see the point of getting worked up over a team I wasn't on, rarely bothered to watch play, and who frequently well, weren't very good. Our girls' track team were consistent state champs back then, but it took them winning states 3 years in a row to get the kind of attention the football team managed to receive for what were generally losing seasons.
I think students should support whatever school teams they like on their own time, and only if they want to.
The school where my daughter teaches chose "option 3", if you will. They proceeded with school as usual, let the police manage the crowd control, and deal with the absences on the back end. They did inform all the kids ahead of time that they understood the situation, but cutting class was still going to carry consequences.
That was actually quite controversial among the faculty. Several liberal folks thought the kids should be given the day off to protest. The centrists reminded them that free speech isn't free. There are always consequences.
Oh goodness no.
I was a coach and I thought they were a waste of time.
I don't think they should be given time off to protest. Your daughter's school also took a reasonable approach. A case of there being more than one right way to handle a situation.
You'll never get a straight answer from that one. Just the ItIsMe shuffle.
So true Sandy - I never gave a shit about sports, then or now, and that's a waste of student learning time - a freaking pep rally.
It's designed to wear you down so you just quit then he can claim "victory" because he "ran" you off.
I don't, either. But if the students that did protest wanted to show their maturity, they would take the detention/suspensions/whatever handed out without protest or running to Mommy and crying foul.
Frequently they don't get a chance to "run to Mommy".
Mommy was hovering anyway and jumps in with both feet.
You really should tell the whole truth about that situation instead of the conservative spin. He was not punished for not taking part.
Yeah, how terrible that kids learn to think for themselves and challenge unconstitutional practices. >sarc <
Since when should schools be allowed to violate the Constitution and get away with it?
The "Left" are a funny sort.
"Kids are ADULTS too."
No wonder "Safe Spaces" are popular these days. When these so-called Children Adults are confronted, they curl up in a ball and cry "Mommy".
Not sure what you're getting at, since its nonsense and doesn't actually address the issue or answer my question.
Not sure....but yet you know....all in the same sentence ?
Interesting.
Seems that dancing around questions is a pattern of behavior, here. One which he has tried to project onto others.
Nope, you're still not making sense.
I've noticed.
In your mind. Not my problem.
Did you not understand YOUR OWN /sarc. comment ?
Ditto !
As another NT member likes to use.
Oh not in my mind, but in reality.
That's why we should all ignore him and not give him the time of day. That act* of his is exhausting.
*The Its' Me Shuffle as coined by Tessylo.
The US was born on the stance of personal freedom and rebellion from authority, but it seems that conservatives only support freedom when they agree with the idea or act that is being opposed. Why should students not be taught to question authority and political power or maybe we should have a virtual king that we are forced to obey. W.Va board of Ed v. Barnette is a very old SCOTUS decision (1943) so why do you have a problem with it now or weren't you aware of it until now? Maybe you think that rights are only for old white men to exercise and the rest of us better know our place in society and STFU except when we are asked.
Seems I am unable to insert links in Chrome and Firefox.
Any way, she had been protesting for 200 days, then the school decides to do something? They have abrogated the permission issue by their very non-action. Five days later, she was re-instated with no reason given as to why. They know why, but they aren't going to say. They don't have a leg stand on.
Landry's mother is supporting her lawsuit, which makes Paxton's approach more than a little strange. Even stranger is the Supreme Court precedents he's attempting to use in his motion to justify his position. He quotes Texas v. Johnson and Spence v. Washington , in which the Court said, "there is a special place reserved for the flag in this Nation, and thus we do not doubt that the government has a legitimate interest in making efforts to 'preserv[e] the national flag as an unalloyed symbol of our country.'" But this quote comes from a Supreme Court case affirming the right to desecrate the flag as a form of protected speech! The decision specifically forbids the government from punishing citizens for disrespecting the flag.
This unconstitutional wankery can be explained by election-year politics and by the fact that Landry is reportedly refusing to stand for the pledge to show her support for kneeling NFL players . In other words, Paxton is supporting the school district punishing a black student for participating in a protest that is fundamentally about how people in authority abuse their power to punish black people.
And Graham wants to complain about democrats wanting power?
Those are good optics for white conservatives in the confederate states.