I assume, since this is a zero-tolerance policy, that pictures of guns being used in wars are torn out of history books. Can’t be too careful.
Christan Morales said her son just wanted to honor American troops when he wore a hat to school decorated with an American flag and small plastic Army figures. But the school banned the hat because it ran afoul of the district’s zero-tolerance weapons policy. Why? The toy soldiers were carrying tiny guns.
[...]
Morales’ 8-year-old son, David, had been assigned to make a hat for the day when his second-grade class would meet their pen pals from another school. She and her son came up with an idea to add patriotic decorations to a camouflage hat. Earlier this week, after the hat was banned, the principal at the Tiogue School in Coventry told the family that the hat would be fine if David replaced the Army men holding weapons with ones that didn’t have any, according to Superintendent Kenneth R. Di Pietro.
[...]
On Thursday, Di Pietro and the principal met with the retired commander of the Rhode Island National Guard, at the commander’s request. Lt. Gen. Reginald Centracchio praised the school system for supporting the military in the past, including with a junior ROTC program. But he said he disagreed with the decision to ban the hat and hoped it offered a chance for the school to review its policies.“The American soldier is armed. That’s why they’re called the armed forces,” he said. “If you’re going to portray it any other way, you miss the point.”
He said he intends to give David a medal to express veterans’ appreciation that he would pay tribute to their service.
“and your alternative to a Sup Ct interpreting the constitution is what? ”
Understanding the definitions of the words in the doc at the time of the writing and starting from there. Otherwise, you get “random” intent leading to throwing Art. 1 Sec 8 out the window… Do YOU think that “interstate commerce” meant “individual citizens” or, the corner Barber shop at the time of the writing?
gibberish.
I expected that you wouldn’t understand plain English. That explains your inability to understand a document like the Constitution.
BTW – I noticed that like ALL libs, you can’t answer the interstate commerce questions…
Since the other threads are dead, I’ll play along.
If you don’t like the Sup Ct interpreting the Const then you have to come up with an alternative. An inane rant that the const should be read with original intent is moronic.
WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?
and to play fair, I will answer your question as poorly put as it is: “Do YOU think that “interstate commerce” meant “individual citizens” or, the corner Barber shop at the time of the writing?/// Of course it meant individual citizens as they engage in interstate commerce. Commerce doesn’t happen except by the actions of people. To a subsuming point: I think the Sup Ct has been wrong about the application of the Commerce Clause applying it to intrastate commerce and the activities of single people not involving anyone else (if that is what you so inartfully were referring to) as in the private growing, production and consumption of any product you wish to name.
So, I can criticize the Sup Ct but I don’t go wingnut and take your position that somehow the Constitution explains itself without human interpretation.
So==your alternative is what?
Anon,
Atheism isn’t liberal political thought, no matter how hard you want it to be. If Atheism had ANY political stripe, which it doesn’t (anti-religion is not anti-conservative), it would be libertarian.
Educate yourself before throwing labels around. Simply calling things you don’t like “liberal” doesn’t make it so.
So, Bobo, you think that the Framers had it in mind for congress to have the power to require individual citizens purchase goods and services from private sources? I ask because your “answer”
is VERY ambiguous.
Anon–you are an idiot.
I have asked you the same question 3 times and even answered your question as inane as it is.
Answer the question.
smartalix said, “Anon, Atheism isn’t liberal political thought, no matter how hard you want it to be”
Okay… Thanks for the info although, I don’t know why you are addressing me regarding it…
Anon,
That was the topic of the link you provided, calling it “More Lib Insanity”. It was about an atheist. Not a liberal. Again, you can’t call somethng liberal just because you want it to be considered so.
The constitution does not change, it is greatest document ever written. To try and force modern sensibilities on it is complete and utter nonsense.
On another thought. Isn’t time we throw our public education system away and start anew?
#30: so you want to throw the public education system away? That’s really thoughtful.
The Constitution itself changes slowly, but its interpretation does change over the decades, simply because Constitutional interpretations change, whether you like that or not. The Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate a lot of things, simply because things like Gatling Guns, genocide of the American Indian, the Civil War, two World Wars and many others, and the equality of all men and women, including American Indians and Blacks. That’s why the Federal courts interpret law based on the current legal situation.
#31 Throw it away, down the trash chute! I have numerous family members who are or were in the education arena. All of them, at one time or another worked in the public system. They all say it is broken, most have switch to private schools.
No more needs to be said, it is evident that you have drunk the PC kool-aid. “simply because things like Gatling Guns, genocide of the American Indian, the Civil War, two World Wars and many others, and the equality of all men and women, including American Indians and Blacks.” Oh yes many glasses.
Hey its really nice
lets enjoy with http://www.laserpegs.com for
Unique Toys, Creative Toys, Kids Toys Store, Building Construction Toys Sets, Toy Building Kits and more at great price. Laser Pegs is the first unique gift toys store online in the world.