Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Appeals Court Says School Had Right To Ban U.S. Flag T-Shirts
CBSNews ^ | February 27, 2014

Posted on 02/27/2014 11:02:41 PM PST by Steelfish

February 27, 2014 Appeals Court Says School Had Right To Ban U.S. Flag T-Shirts

A student wears one of the shirts disallowed on Cinco de Mayo at Live Oak High School in Morgan Hill, Calif. CBS SAN FRANCISCO

SAN FRANCISCO - Officials at a Northern California high school acted appropriately when they ordered students wearing American flag T-shirts to turn the garments inside out during the Mexican heritage celebration Cinco de Mayo, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the officials' concerns of racial violence outweighed students' freedom of expression rights. Administrators feared the American-flag shirts would enflame the passions of Latino students celebrating the Mexican holiday. Live Oak High School, in the San Jose suburb of Morgan Hill, had a history of problems between white and Latino students on that day.

The unanimous three-judge panel said past problems gave school officials sufficient and justifiable reasons for their actions. The court said schools have wide latitude in curbing certain civil rights to ensure campus safety.

"Our role is not to second-guess the decision to have a Cinco de Mayo celebration or the precautions put in place to avoid violence," Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for the panel. The past events "made it reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real," she wrote.

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: altacalifornia; cincodemayo; lofan; revanchism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last
To: fieldmarshaldj
why have Cinco de Mayo anyway in school?....cancel it...if they forbade all kids or teachers from wearing flags or insignias or other it would be one thing, but they only limited the American students....

they would never ever tell blacks to not wear their gang insignia on Cinco De Mayo....never....

21 posted on 02/27/2014 11:52:42 PM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

I’ going to buy several Flags of Islam and have them go to school and see what happens. Awhile back I called the Freedom From Religion Foundation and told them there were Muslim students pushing Islam on me and pretended to be athiest. They hung up on me. Need I say more?


22 posted on 02/27/2014 11:53:48 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cherry
I dare the American kids to wear the shirts anyway, and refuse to turn them inside out.....I would hope those kids get sent home....and if they're stars on the BB team or football or choir, so be it....it they're NMS winners, so be it....

its time to take a stand....

23 posted on 02/27/2014 11:54:07 PM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

I could care less what you think!Ca.is a joke and I wish they would stop moving to Texas.If Ca. was so great why is our state being bombarded with your elk?


24 posted on 02/27/2014 11:55:49 PM PST by plainshame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cherry

CDM is an American holiday. It is not noticed in Mexico. The got there ass kicked by the French after that.


25 posted on 02/27/2014 11:56:44 PM PST by Domangart (LBGT = NAMBLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

All we see at our condos is Ca.plates leaving your state to come to Texas!You must be in denial!


26 posted on 02/28/2014 12:00:33 AM PST by plainshame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

This is like the appeasement of Islamists. YOU must watch your step because “there will be trouble” - even though it’s completely unreasonable for there to be trouble. Never surrender to these monkeys. This judge has his head so far up his ass he’s looking out his mouth.


27 posted on 02/28/2014 12:04:53 AM PST by Ray76 (How modern liberals think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

To be clear: “monkey” means stupid judges


28 posted on 02/28/2014 12:07:49 AM PST by Ray76 (How modern liberals think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Insane


29 posted on 02/28/2014 12:12:04 AM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plainshame

Your country is a liberal Marxist country that reelected Barack Obama and put Harry Reid in charge of the Senate. There’s no denying it. Your country enacted the worst socialized medicine scheme in human history. Can’t you at least apologize?


30 posted on 02/28/2014 12:17:26 AM PST by ElkGroveDan (My tagline is in the shop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ElkGroveDan

You must be on drugs or smoking something!I have never met an obama voter yet.


31 posted on 02/28/2014 12:21:58 AM PST by plainshame
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish; All
I don't know the specifics of the referenced case. But note that, regardless that several states incorprated language from the Bill of Rights into their own constitutions, the Founding Nanny States had decided that the states were not obligated to respect the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and the BoR drafted to limit the federal government's powers. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from Thomas Jefferson's writings. Note that the first excerpt was written before the Constitution was drafted.
"Whatsoever is lawful in the Commonwealth or permitted to the subject in the ordinary way cannot be forbidden to him for religious uses; and whatsoever is prejudicial to the Commonwealth in their ordinary uses and, therefore, prohibited by the laws, ought not to be permitted to churches in their sacred rites. For instance, it is unlawful in the ordinary course of things or in a private house to murder a child; it should not be permitted any sect then to sacrifice children. It is ordinarily lawful (or temporarily lawful) to kill calves or lambs; they may, therefore, be religiously sacrificed. But if the good of the State required a temporary suspension of killing lambs, as during a siege, sacrifices of them may then be rightfully suspended also. This is the true extent of toleration (emphasis added)." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:547
“3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people: that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed (emphasis added); …” —Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

But also consider that regardless the states obligated themselves to respect constitutional privileges and immunites when they ratified the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A had officially clarified that 14A took away no states righs.

“The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of first column)

No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired…” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See top half of 1st column)

“Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance.” —John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column)

So the states still have the power to reasonably limit our constitutionally enumerated rights regardless of 14A. In fact, Justice Reed had noted that is the job of judges to balance 10A-protected state powers with 14A-protected personal rights.

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.

I know that if I was a school official looking at the possibility of injured or dead students as a result of a possible student clash, I would have seriously considered the "preemptive strike" of having students turning their t-shirts inside out. That's better than having to console parents by telling them that their child died at least while they were exercising their freedom of speech.

32 posted on 02/28/2014 12:25:26 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plainshame
Can the 9th circuit and Ca. just vanish? They should create their own liberal country and leave Americans alone.

Ironic you posted that, just recently on FR or The Tea Party mailing list (can't remember which) A senator/representative was quoted saying that he'd like to see CA. divided into 5 (five) states? (I believe I recollect). The reason was something to this nature: CA.is TOO large and diversified for one Governor.

33 posted on 02/28/2014 1:15:54 AM PST by progunner (no compromise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

Well the California courts already ruled that a state constitution amendment voted for by the people was unconstitutional.

The left is like the queen in Alice in wonderland, the law is what they say the law is.


34 posted on 02/28/2014 2:10:25 AM PST by CIB-173RDABN (I do not doubt that our climate changes. I only doubt that anything man does has any effect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

Can’t we just consider CA part of Mexico and be done with it? It would be great to have their electoral votes disappear in U.S. elections. If a conservative president is ever elected, that should be his first executive order. After all, we don’t need Congress to pass laws any more.


35 posted on 02/28/2014 3:50:09 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu

bullshit

THE COURT isn’t “stuck”

try and get a really verifiable Constitutional verdict from them

the problem is “the parents should hold the school “ hostage with kingu manning the thompson machine gun”

dont aim for their blackhearts aim for the whites in their lies


36 posted on 02/28/2014 5:00:22 AM PST by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

if you want to censor my posts at THE LEAST read them before you post them TWICE and when I post followed by the caveat and you only post the caveat wtf

filtering set too high

yeah the NSA ah nevermind

jim thompson told me there is no track on the PM so why do you block that

more people PM me than would dare say it to your face on the forum so why do you care

and you block that

whatever


37 posted on 02/28/2014 5:00:22 AM PST by bigheadfred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: willywill

In a private school, I’d agree, but in a public school, there should be greater protection of fundamental liberties.


38 posted on 02/28/2014 5:05:06 AM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Courts just violence means legitimacy?

Violence=special protection.

This story was also posted later: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3127891/posts?page=1

And as said there, that's two in a row: Court: School can ban US flag shirts for safety

And which teaches that the way to get something banned is to start a riot. Which discriminates against those who do not. And if Christians responded with violence to the incessant offensive blasphemous material the media spews out, then the 9th would also ban it? Highly unlikely.

39 posted on 02/28/2014 5:12:09 AM PST by daniel1212 (Come to the Lord Jesus as a contrite damned+destitute sinner, trust Him to save you, then live 4 Him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

There are reasons why the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decisions are overruled more often than the decisions of any other Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.


40 posted on 02/28/2014 5:33:28 AM PST by Scoutmaster (I'd rather be at Philmont)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson