Perhaps from his father, who says, "Son, don't take that BB gun out of this yard, and don't point it at anybody, or I'll take it away from you and ground you for two weeks." In the same fashion that Dad says, "You talk to me that way again, and I'll tar your hide." Are you getting this? The infringement is present, right, and just. Needs no Bill of Rights. The boy has none in this context. His role is to learn, not dictate.
Not the case here; here we have a rule set up in direct violation of the state and federal Constitutions.
I didn't see anything about his dad there.
Are you getting this? The infringement is present, right, and just. Needs no Bill of Rights. The boy has none in this context. His role is to learn, not dictate.
That is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. You are not only agreeing that the prohibited is present, but calling it right and just and legitimate.
You claim that the role of "learner" absolves him of rights, well then should not the German soldiers have been acquitted as their roles were "command-followers"?
You apparently do not understand that rights in a state or the US constitution limit government. They do not limit parental rights.
Parents and the states are two very different institutions. One generally has the best interest of its child at heart, the other almost never does. I suspect you may not guess which is which, but I will give you a chance to try.