American schools are unconstitutional!

I was shocked and appalled when I realized one of my friends (A younger chap who finishes highschool this year) got into a fistfight with another lad who made the first punch...And couldnt fight back to defend himself by school code of conduct.

Many schools have implemented the "Zero Violence Tolerance" statute or some similar rule regarding that you cannot defend yourself even if hit. Self defense in itself is a fundamental human right, and backed up by the 2nd Amendment, which states Americans have the right to bear arms and use self defense.The 14th Amendmentt states that man has certain inalienable rights.

Now I have a hard time believing why so many American schools (And workplaces too!) would knowingly BAN a fundamental and inalienable right. This in itself is unconstitutional, and I wanted to bring it to the surface.

Government schools are social engineers trying to indoctrinate us to be reliant on the system.

I tried to form a petition in my government school (protesting the suspension of a teacher)

I received a week long suspension.

reply to post by Mach5


Although I don't agree with the policy. I don't think your argument is a valid one. The work place and anything coverred by contracts such as the airports, schools etc. are not covered by the constitutional laws. If you really don't like the policys then it should be your job to work towards changing them. The main reason most of these policies are in force is to keep down liability and law suits. If both people are expelled or fired then they can't be accused of being prejudice etc.

Originally posted by redrose123
reply to post by Mach5

 

Although I don't agree with the policy. I don't think your argument is a valid one. The work place and anything coverred by contracts such as the airports, schools etc. are not covered by the constitutional laws. If you really don't like the policys then it should be your job to work towards changing them. The main reason most of these policies are in force is to keep down liability and law suits. If both people are expelled or fired then they can't be accused of being prejudice etc.

You're comparing a private entity to a government one... apples and oranges.

reply to post by Mach5


The 2nd Amendment makes no mention of self-defense, and neither does the 14th Amendment. I would however agree with you that it seems rather unfair to expect anyone to not defend themselves, but that can be done without also engaging in throwing punches...

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


The second Amendment does state that you have the right to defend yourself in an equal amount relative to the proportion of the attack. Fists? Combat with fists. Home invader with an assault rifle? Combat to kill. The 14th Amendment backs this up as being inalienable. The entire Constitution grants autonomy to any given American (A teenage mom can decide to have an abortion or not, etc). Research research research. Still pisses me off though how they can do that under our noses.

The only thing worse than the zero tolerance policy is the dribble they are trying to teach the children in the first place. That is why I have several books on subjects such as history and science for my son, because the crap in the Texas school system has adapted history books that contain about as much truth in them as Grimm's Fairy Tales. Adults need to be active in their children's education, no matter what. The best advice I ever got as a student was this " Never be afraid to check facts. Dare to ask why. If you find facts that do not coincide with what the schoolbook teaches, show it to the teachers. Just because we teach doesn't mean we know everything."
Besides, everyone teaches to the tests now. Its pathetic.

my mom taught me to never throw the first punch. when some kid in grade 5 decided he wanted to punch me,
I punched him right back, harder, I got suspended and my mom had to come talk to the principal.
she wasn't mad at me that I got the suspension, she was proud that I stood up for myself. I wouldn't throw a first punch, cause it's a good lesson, you don't need to. but when it comes down to me taking a punch, or about to, I have no problem in unleashing a good solid quick one to the jaw.

reply to post by Mach5


Its all about school liability not protecting the student.

Get a lawyer on retainer (good advice for anyone)

and any, and I MEAN any issue with the school ask if you lawyer should be present, this will quell a lot of bs.

record and document everything, once the school sees what the potential for litigation you represent you find the Liabiallity of a child defending himself is far less then a long legal battle with a knowledgable parent.

Originally posted by volafox
...because the crap in the Texas school system has adapted history books that contain about as much truth in them as Grimm's Fairy Tales...

Could you offer an example of this please? I'm keeping a look out for this and finding most fault with the teachers, not the books. I'd love to see that?

reply to post by yourmaker


Soviet Russian education is more effective

But seriously, at least they had awesome teachers that would party with the students, not just sit in the corner and do paperwork.

reply to post by TreadUpon


Almost every teacher I see (Except for several that taught me Science subjects) read and teach entirely from the book. If you ask me, our education system needs to be fixed far above anything else - The economy wont recover completely in this generation, we must teach the next.

reply to post by EmVeeFF


I remember this one post where a mom wrote a letter to the school saying something along the lines of "If you suspend my daughter for defending herself, I will use the suspension day to take her to Disneyland and congratulate her.".

Balls. Eyeballs. Thats what the American people need to grow.
(Double entendre ftw )

reply to post by Mach5


This is the second amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Where exactly does it mention self-defense?

Please read the Constitution instead of making the Constitution say whatever you believe. Self-defense is never mentioned in the Constitution. It is only Common Law that allows citizens of the U.S. the right to self defense

Also, your example fails because the kid never went to jail for defending himself. He only got suspended. In schools, students do not have the same rights as they do outside of school. For example, they do not have the right to freedom of speech.

reply to post by Mach5


This came about in large part after the Columbine tragedy - and by completely eliminating any thoughtful analysis of each individual situation/problem, they felt they best shielded themselves from liability.

I remember a case a decade or so ago - a year or so into this "zero tolerance" mindset where a young woman was expelled for tylenol. In the particular circumstances of the case, everyone - and I mean everyone, from the school district on down, agreed that the facts of the incident did not warrant harsh punishment - EXCEPT that they had a "no tolerance" policy. You know we are going astray in our society when we put strict policies in effect to prevent rational thinking. This is a subject I had not revisited in awhile - S&F.

reply to post by Hippo45


And...? You think thats constitutional? This is a PUBLIC SCHOOL, meaning that the government owns it, and its bound by the Constitution, If it was a private school on the other hand, it wouldnt be bound by any laws except state laws.

Nothing in the 2nd amendment other than the right to bear arms apply's to State or local governments. It's a bit complicated but I will try to explain.

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now prior to 2010 the right to bear arms didn't even apply to State or Local goverment meaning a State could pass a law forbidding anyone from owing a weapon. Until the case was brought before the Supreme Court.

Justices Extend Firearm Rights in 5-to-4 Ruling

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

www.nytimes.com...

Now the Supreme Court has not ruled on anything else in the Second Amendment other than that meaning that anything pertaining to self defense would still be up to the State to regulate.

Originally posted by kro32

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to bear arms applies to state and local gun control laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday in a 5-to-4 decision.

Now the Supreme Court has not ruled on anything else in the Second Amendment other that meaning that anything pertaining to self defense would still be up to the State to regulate.

I use Counter-Quote

The specific definition of self defense - particularly defense justifying the use of lethal force - differs from state to state. The basic qualifications, however, center around a legitimate threat to your life. Self-defense usually is justified if you believe your life or health is in immediate danger. The proof thresholds for this differ according to state laws. Some states say that by an individual entering private property, then the resident of that property can justifiably assume he is at risk. Others say that you are only allowed to defend yourself if a criminal is in the process of attacking you.

Its super effective!

But really, self-defense laws fall into the same area as gun laws - They are both listed in it. I think a lawyer would have the answer. *shout* Any lawyers here on ATS?

Well if you can connect the overall priciple of self defense to the right to bear arms than yes it would be applicable. However this case did not involve the issue of weapons so it may be a stretch on whether it would stand up to scrutiny.

I would love to argue this case on either side however as it would be a challenge. VERY good point

...aside from this NOT being a constitutional issue and aside from the opinion that public schools are programming institutes - - - i can see a valid reason for the no tolerance for fighting policy - and that is - all fights come down to "he did it first - no, he did it first - no, you did - no, you know you did"... kids have been playing that game forever... discipline both equally - thats fair...