Our Flag: Shrouded

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Our Flag: Shrouded

You are truly an ignorant and tedious partisan hack.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment, as with other rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions.

The school policy with regard to flags on shirts is one example of a reasonable, and Constitutional, restriction.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court held that school policies which inadvertently burden students’ free expression rights were Constitutional provided they pursued a proper and legitimate end, in this case seeking to avoid disruption and violence in the school.

The Tinker Court admonished school officials that the restriction must not have the primary focus of disallowing speech it perceived to be controversial or unpopular, and as long as the primary effect of the policy was to ensure a safe school environment, as is the situation in this case, such policies are permissible.

Consequently, the ruling had nothing to do with judges ‘taking anything upon themselves,’ rather the judges correctly and appropriately followed established and settled First Amendment jurisprudence.

You’d understand that had you actually read the ruling and understood the law, as opposed to contriving this ignorant, inane, and partisan nonsense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Our Flag: Shrouded

You are truly an ignorant and tedious partisan hack.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment, as with other rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions.

The school policy with regard to flags on shirts is one example of a reasonable, and Constitutional, restriction.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court held that school policies which inadvertently burden students’ free expression rights were Constitutional provided they pursued a proper and legitimate end, in this case seeking to avoid disruption and violence in the school.

The Tinker Court admonished school officials that the restriction must not have the primary focus of disallowing speech it perceived to be controversial or unpopular, and as long as the primary effect of the policy was to ensure a safe school environment, as is the situation in this case, such policies are permissible.

Consequently, the ruling had nothing to do with judges ‘taking anything upon themselves,’ rather the judges correctly and appropriately followed established and settled First Amendment jurisprudence.

You’d understand that had you actually read the ruling and understood the law, as opposed to contriving this ignorant, inane, and partisan nonsense.

Spoken like the true coward that you are, C_Chamber_Pot.

Since the OP was essentially penned by Jonathan Turley, known as a 'legal scholar, you also look quite the fool trying to school Turley on the Constitution, and on politics.

"Jonathan Turley is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is currently a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School."
Jonathan Turley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It is so much more than amusing to imagine you speaking thusly to Turley:
"You’d understand that had you actually read the ruling and understood the law, as opposed to contriving this ignorant, inane, and partisan nonsense."


Oh, man....I just love picturing that exchange!!!!




Again....he writes:
.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.



For clarity....which are you more, a dope, a coward, a Democrat?
Was I being redundant?


Please....don't stop now.
Jerk.

 

[1751_Texan]

Our Flag: Shrouded

You are truly an ignorant and tedious partisan hack.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment, as with other rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions.

The school policy with regard to flags on shirts is one example of a reasonable, and Constitutional, restriction.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court held that school policies which inadvertently burden students’ free expression rights were Constitutional provided they pursued a proper and legitimate end, in this case seeking to avoid disruption and violence in the school.

The Tinker Court admonished school officials that the restriction must not have the primary focus of disallowing speech it perceived to be controversial or unpopular, and as long as the primary effect of the policy was to ensure a safe school environment, as is the situation in this case, such policies are permissible.

Consequently, the ruling had nothing to do with judges ‘taking anything upon themselves,’ rather the judges correctly and appropriately followed established and settled First Amendment jurisprudence.

You’d understand that had you actually read the ruling and understood the law, as opposed to contriving this ignorant, inane, and partisan nonsense.

Spoken like the true coward that you are, C_Chamber_Pot.

Since the OP was essentially penned by Jonathan Turley, known as a 'legal scholar, you also look quite the fool trying to school Turley on the Constitution, and on politics.

"Jonathan Turley is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is currently a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School."
Jonathan Turley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It is so much more than amusing to imagine you speaking thusly to Turley:
"You’d understand that had you actually read the ruling and understood the law, as opposed to contriving this ignorant, inane, and partisan nonsense."

Oh, man....I just love picturing that exchange!!!!

Again....he writes:
.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.
For clarity....which are you more, a dope, a coward, a Democrat?
Was I being redundant?

Please....don't stop now.
Jerk.

Maybe Professor Turley mis calculated the role of the school not as investagator and procecutor but as educators acting to keep the school free of hostile strife...

The school can not and should not act under assumption that they should operate under the rules of an law enforcement agency.

Secondly, to remove a student to aviod harassment is a poor analogy...A human student and their Constitutional rights do not compare to precieved rights of a flag. Even Professor Turley would agree with that.

If a school has a sock-hop planned, and two rival gangs are threating violence...should the school wait till the sock hop and the violence then procecute those involved, or does the school have the right and duty to cancel the function in order to prevent innocent students from being injured?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are truly an ignorant and tedious partisan hack.

The rights enshrined in the First Amendment, as with other rights, although inalienable, are not absolute, and subject to reasonable restrictions.

The school policy with regard to flags on shirts is one example of a reasonable, and Constitutional, restriction.

In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), the Supreme Court held that school policies which inadvertently burden students’ free expression rights were Constitutional provided they pursued a proper and legitimate end, in this case seeking to avoid disruption and violence in the school.

The Tinker Court admonished school officials that the restriction must not have the primary focus of disallowing speech it perceived to be controversial or unpopular, and as long as the primary effect of the policy was to ensure a safe school environment, as is the situation in this case, such policies are permissible.

Consequently, the ruling had nothing to do with judges ‘taking anything upon themselves,’ rather the judges correctly and appropriately followed established and settled First Amendment jurisprudence.

You’d understand that had you actually read the ruling and understood the law, as opposed to contriving this ignorant, inane, and partisan nonsense.

Spoken like the true coward that you are, C_Chamber_Pot.

Since the OP was essentially penned by Jonathan Turley, known as a 'legal scholar, you also look quite the fool trying to school Turley on the Constitution, and on politics.

"Jonathan Turley is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is currently a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School."
Jonathan Turley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It is so much more than amusing to imagine you speaking thusly to Turley:
"You’d understand that had you actually read the ruling and understood the law, as opposed to contriving this ignorant, inane, and partisan nonsense."

Oh, man....I just love picturing that exchange!!!!

Again....he writes:
.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.
For clarity....which are you more, a dope, a coward, a Democrat?
Was I being redundant?

Please....don't stop now.
Jerk.

Maybe Professor Turley mis calculated the role of the school not as investagator and procecutor but as educators acting to keep the school free of hostile strife...

The school can not and should not act under assumption that they should operate under the rules of an law enforcement agency.

Secondly, to remove a student to aviod harassment is a poor analogy...A human student and their Constitutional rights do not compare to precieved rights of a flag. Even Professor Turley would agree with that.

If a school has a sock-hop planned, and two rival gangs are threating violence...should the school wait till the sock hop and the violence then procecute those involved, or does the school have the right and duty to cancel the function in order to prevent innocent students from being injured?

Seems more likely that you don't understand the importance of retaining the right of free speech.


".... educators acting to keep the school free of hostile strife...should not act under assumption that they should operate under the rules of an law enforcement agency."

There is a rumor that some schools, and school personnel actually have the phone number of the local police department.

Some even have the sense to use same.



Here in NYC the police pay attention to rumors and even use social media to prepare for problems.
Last week, in anticipation of same, 43 police were waiting and avoid a prepared riotl


“I saw a bunch of kids running around,” Shaina Rene, 17, sales associate at Aeropostale. “They got chased out by police. There was about a hundred of them”
Teens go berserk at Kings Plaza mall ? again | New York Post



Abridging the free speech of the innocent is not the answer.....no matter how much you fear the result.

 

[MikeK]

I also think the Star Spangled Banner is a dissonant, annoyingly non-melodic and uninspiring, goose-stepping anthem which should be dumped and replaced by America, The Beautiful, the words and music of which are all and everything a national anthem should express.

 

[1751_Texan]

Spoken like the true coward that you are, C_Chamber_Pot.

Since the OP was essentially penned by Jonathan Turley, known as a 'legal scholar, you also look quite the fool trying to school Turley on the Constitution, and on politics.

"Jonathan Turley is an American lawyer, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst in broadcast and print journalism. He is currently a professor of law at The George Washington University Law School."
Jonathan Turley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



It is so much more than amusing to imagine you speaking thusly to Turley:
"You’d understand that had you actually read the ruling and understood the law, as opposed to contriving this ignorant, inane, and partisan nonsense."

Oh, man....I just love picturing that exchange!!!!

Again....he writes:
.... the court entirely misses the distinction between speech and conduct.
When presented with threats of violence, the school should punish those who engage in harassing or violent acts. .... One would have thought that those who made threats would face action from the school administration.

Removing any display of the flag in the face of violence is akin to removing gay students to avoid harassment or girls to avoid sexual assaults.
For clarity....which are you more, a dope, a coward, a Democrat?
Was I being redundant?

Please....don't stop now.
Jerk.

Maybe Professor Turley mis calculated the role of the school not as investagator and procecutor but as educators acting to keep the school free of hostile strife...

The school can not and should not act under assumption that they should operate under the rules of an law enforcement agency.

Secondly, to remove a student to aviod harassment is a poor analogy...A human student and their Constitutional rights do not compare to precieved rights of a flag. Even Professor Turley would agree with that.

If a school has a sock-hop planned, and two rival gangs are threating violence...should the school wait till the sock hop and the violence then procecute those involved, or does the school have the right and duty to cancel the function in order to prevent innocent students from being injured?

Seems more likely that you don't understand the importance of retaining the right of free speech.


".... educators acting to keep the school free of hostile strife...should not act under assumption that they should operate under the rules of an law enforcement agency."

There is a rumor that some schools, and school personnel actually have the phone number of the local police department.

Some even have the sense to use same.



Here in NYC the police pay attention to rumors and even use social media to prepare for problems.
Last week, in anticipation of same, 43 police were waiting and avoid a prepared riotl


“I saw a bunch of kids running around,” Shaina Rene, 17, sales associate at Aeropostale. “They got chased out by police. There was about a hundred of them”
Teens go berserk at Kings Plaza mall ? again | New York Post



Abridging the free speech of the innocent is not the answer.....no matter how much you fear the result.

Again what happens in a mall and what schools control are different. As was mentioned to you before, the USSC has ruled that schools did have a right to restrict student's speech.

You and porfessor Turley may not agree but that is the current rulings. Those are the current rulings on student's speech and schools.

Tinker v Des Moines School District

Bether School District v Fraiser

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier

All affirming schools ability to curb student's speech. You may be right, I may not understand the 1st, but I do take these Supreme Courts rulings over your and professor Turley's opinion.

 

[Spiderman]

Sad to think that there are great numbers of folks like you here, in this once great nation.




I have a quote that is far more accurate, and relates directly to you:

“If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man.”


― Mark Twain

Patriotism is ridiculous.

Haven't we evolved beyond our tribal ways where we piss on our territory?

PAtriotism is a manufactured state of mind used by those in power to get the rest of us to fight and die for their causes.

Don't let the door hit 'ya.......

I pay rent to live here with my taxes. I feel no need to pay with blood.

Our government has sent millions of men to their deaths for dubious reasons all in the name of patriotism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe Professor Turley mis calculated the role of the school not as investagator and procecutor but as educators acting to keep the school free of hostile strife...

The school can not and should not act under assumption that they should operate under the rules of an law enforcement agency.

Secondly, to remove a student to aviod harassment is a poor analogy...A human student and their Constitutional rights do not compare to precieved rights of a flag. Even Professor Turley would agree with that.

If a school has a sock-hop planned, and two rival gangs are threating violence...should the school wait till the sock hop and the violence then procecute those involved, or does the school have the right and duty to cancel the function in order to prevent innocent students from being injured?

Seems more likely that you don't understand the importance of retaining the right of free speech.


".... educators acting to keep the school free of hostile strife...should not act under assumption that they should operate under the rules of an law enforcement agency."

There is a rumor that some schools, and school personnel actually have the phone number of the local police department.

Some even have the sense to use same.



Here in NYC the police pay attention to rumors and even use social media to prepare for problems.
Last week, in anticipation of same, 43 police were waiting and avoid a prepared riotl


“I saw a bunch of kids running around,” Shaina Rene, 17, sales associate at Aeropostale. “They got chased out by police. There was about a hundred of them”
Teens go berserk at Kings Plaza mall ? again | New York Post



Abridging the free speech of the innocent is not the answer.....no matter how much you fear the result.

Again what happens in a mall and what schools control are different. As was mentioned to you before, the USSC has ruled that schools did have a right to restrict student's speech.

You and porfessor Turley may not agree but that is the current rulings. Those are the current rulings on student's speech and schools.

Tinker v Des Moines School District

Bether School District v Fraiser

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier

All affirming schools ability to curb student's speech. You may be right, I may not understand the 1st, but I do take these Supreme Courts rulings over your and professor Turley's opinion.

1."Again what happens in a mall and what schools control are different."
Nonsense.
Police are the common denominator.


2. "I do take these Supreme Courts rulings..."
Too bad you don't have a mind of your own.....

...so, you loved the Dred Scott decision?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Patriotism is ridiculous.

Haven't we evolved beyond our tribal ways where we piss on our territory?

PAtriotism is a manufactured state of mind used by those in power to get the rest of us to fight and die for their causes.

Don't let the door hit 'ya.......

I pay rent to live here with my taxes. I feel no need to pay with blood.

Our government has sent millions of men to their deaths for dubious reasons all in the name of patriotism.

Luckily there are real men who feel differently.

 

[Spiderman]

Don't let the door hit 'ya.......

I pay rent to live here with my taxes. I feel no need to pay with blood.

Our government has sent millions of men to their deaths for dubious reasons all in the name of patriotism.

Luckily there are real men who feel differently.

OOOH an internet insult.

I'm crushed.

 

[bianco]

America used to be British, and a different flag flew over the land.
America today flies a different flag, of which the national anthem is all about.


pa·tri·ot·ism/ˈpeɪtriəˌtɪzəm or, esp. British, ˈpæ-/ Show Spelled [pey-tree-uh-tiz-uhm or, esp. British, pa-] Show IPA

noun
devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty.


When America's soul and culture are under threat from within today, ...from atheists and those who would rather see a different flag flying and Christianity non existent...it's good to see patriots speaking out.

When did our flag become a Christian icon? There are plenty of good men and women burried at our National cemetaries around the world that have no affiliation to Christianity.

The didn't pay the ultimate sacrafice for Christianity...they did for America and ALL AMERICANS.

Fly the flag, dont fly the flag...that is your Constitutional choice. That is what the flag represents.

national cemetery in france - Bing Images

True...but seems to me that most of those buried in the those National war Cemeteries around the world did have some affiliation with Christianity, if not in practice, then in belief/thinking/culture..."In God We Trust".

The flag is that of a "Christian" nation in soul...although named as secular in law.

The flag on their sleeves, they sing The Battle Hymn of The Republic.

 

[bianco]

using the flag as an article of clothing is tacky as all get out not to mention disrespectful. I served & I would never wear something like that. Most all those items are prolly made in, you guessed it Red China anyway.

Wearing one's flag as a cape is the modern patriotic thing to do;

Buy Australian Flag Cape | Australia Day Clothing Online


America's flag code/etiquette seems a lot stricter than in some other countries, but I can see how many American patriots might be also doing it...draping/caping in the flag.

US Flag -- Disrespectful Uses on Pinterest




"Caped crusaders".

 

[bianco]

Maybe it started at the Olympics, who knows where it started...but draping/caping oneself in one's national flag is seen by many as the ultimate patriotic act today;

At the Olympics;

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...LFoftiAf1sYDYDA&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1016&bih=499