That pesky bill of rights.

Sorry knucklehead, but you're the one who imagines that the Constitution is whatever you want it to mean. As evidenced by your repetitive idiotic posts stating that the Constitution has a meaning that the SCOTUS (who, sorry you don't know this...are the folks that decide such things) has repeatedly rejected. We can start with Roe v. Wade if you like.

If you want to say you disagree with the SCOTUS about something, that's fine. Tell us about your legal education, your legal reasoning and your legal conclusions about why they are wrong. Sorry, but the SCOTUS is made up of folks who spend their lives figuring out what the document means. Tell me again...what do you do? And what qualifies you to tell the rest of us what the Constitution means? Originally Posted by timpage

You say that my position on Roe v Wade is idiotic. It's same position held by four of the current members of the court. Roe v Wade came within a hair's breadth of being overturned in 1992. It would have been, except that Anthony Kennedy changed his mind at the last minute.

I wish the majority of the court "spent their lives figuring out what the document means." That's what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to figure out the original intent of the words and rule accordingly. That's called originalism and the left doesn't believe that's how the Constitution should be interpreted. The left believes that original intent doesn't matter today because the Constitution was written long ago by a bunch of old white slave owners whose opinions are meaningless in today's world.

If Obama and the rest of his fellow travelers had their way, the Constitution would be completely abandoned.

You say that my position on Roe v Wade is idiotic. It's same position held by four of the current members of the court. Roe v Wade came within a hair's breadth of being overturned in 1992. It would have been, except that Anthony Kennedy changed his mind at the last minute.

I wish the majority of the court "spent their lives figuring out what the document means." That's what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to figure out the original intent of the words and rule accordingly. That's called originalism and the left doesn't believe that's how the Constitution should be interpreted. The left believes that original intent doesn't matter today because the Constitution was written long ago by a bunch of old white slave owners whose opinions are meaningless in today's world.

If Obama and the rest of his fellow travelers had their way, the Constitution would be completely abandoned. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Do you agree with the Heller decision on 2nd Amendment rights? It was 5-4. You're OK with that one, right? Or, do you think that decision should not have the force of law that Roe v. Wade has?

He's an idiot. Burning a flag or stomping on it, is protected speech in a certain context...a political rally, for instance. But, doing it in front of a captive audience of school kids seems over the line to me. He should be fired. Originally Posted by timpage

That is exactly where this type of thing should occur. How else are our children going to learn to think for themselves. This type of demonstration is designed to instill a sense of debate within the students to inspire them to make their own decisions about what they believe.

Society is doing so much to harm school age children's ability to decide for themselves. We suspend kids for wearing T-shirts that might offend someone else. Some schools will force them to say things like the "Pledge of Allegiance" and scorn them if they choose not to participate. Other schools will suspend a child for praying silently to themselves or "Tebowing."

A group of Children have been suspended for finding a topless photo of a teacher on her school issued iPad given to them by her.

Children are being expelled for refusing to wear a tracking device while on school grounds.

This is an incident of High School age young adults. The issue is only being brought up because of Parental outrage over nothing. This guy should not be fired he is doing his job. He is teaching these kids to think for themselves. Something that so much of this nation does not want them to learn.

A school administrator said this....

A spokesperson for the school district, Mark Bounds, said: "Our superintendent served in the military, I served in the military for 20 years, our flag is a symbol of our freedom, and so many people have fought and died for that liberty, and so we take this action very seriously.”

I wonder if he can see the irony of this.

Do you agree with the Heller decision on 2nd Amendment rights? It was 5-4. You're OK with that one, right? Or, do you think that decision should not have the force of law that Roe v. Wade has? Originally Posted by timpage

For better or for worse, all supreme court decisions have the force of law. I think Roe v Wade should be overturned; until it is, it's the law. I thought upholding Obamacare was a mistake, but it's still the law of the land.

Since Heller upholds the individual's right to bear arms, I agree with it. The second amendment clearly gives Americans the right to own guns.

There is a difference in free speech when he is at his place of employment. An employee does not have the right to say anything they want without risking management disapproval and potential firing. He could have easily made his point without actually stepping on the flag so you can't use his teaching as an excuse.

Timmy, are you serious? You think SC Justices have spent their lives trying to figure out what the Constitution means? What a crock of shit. Justices are appointed because of how they are willing to twist the Constitution in the direction of the current powers that be. How the hell else could legal midgets like Sotomayor or Kagan get on the Court? Or Souter, there was a "brilliant" justice.

The Senate Judiciary Committee makes sure whoever is nominated meets their ideology, not their knowledge. If knowledge was a criterion, Robert Bork would have been Chief Justice. Or Laurence Tribe.

Legal scholars no longer get appointed to the Court. Legal puppets only need apply.

Timmy, are you serious? You think SC Justices have spent their lives trying to figure out what the Constitution means? What a crock of shit. Justices are appointed because of how they are willing to twist the Constitution in the direction of the current powers that be. How the hell else could legal midgets like Sotomayor or Kagan get on the Court? Or Souter, there was a "brilliant" justice.

The Senate Judiciary Committee makes sure whoever is nominated meets their ideology, not their knowledge. If knowledge was a criterion, Robert Bork would have been Chief Justice. Or Laurence Tribe.

Legal scholars no longer get appointed to the Court. Legal puppets only need apply. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You simple-minded sack of shit. I'll presume it was just an oversight on your part when you neglected to mention Clarence Thomas as a mental midget not worthy of an appointment. Once again, your ideological stripes betray you.

Thomas turned out better than I thought, but he is still a shill for Monsanto. But no, he was not the "legal scholar" that should have been appointed to the Court. I'll give you that one, Timmy. He should be on the list.

There is a difference in free speech when he is at his place of employment. An employee does not have the right to say anything they want without risking management disapproval and potential firing. He could have easily made his point without actually stepping on the flag so you can't use his teaching as an excuse. Originally Posted by Laz

You are correct. He does risk being fired, my point is why fire a teacher who was obviously getting through to the students.

This issue came to light because a father overheard his daughter talking about it to a friend. She didn't go to him to complain. The teacher got this particular student to talk about a real concrete grown up issue outside of the classroom. Sure he risked being fired, but the system would lose a good teacher.

Think back to the teachers you had in high school, do you remember the ones that just followed a textbook or do you remember the ones that inspired you to think?

Timmy, are you serious? You think SC Justices have spent their lives trying to figure out what the Constitution means? What a crock of shit. Justices are appointed because of how they are willing to twist the Constitution in the direction of the current powers that be. How the hell else could legal midgets like Sotomayor or Kagan get on the Court? Or Souter, there was a "brilliant" justice.

The Senate Judiciary Committee makes sure whoever is nominated meets their ideology, not their knowledge. If knowledge was a criterion, Robert Bork would have been Chief Justice. Or Laurence Tribe.

Legal scholars no longer get appointed to the Court. Legal puppets only need apply. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

W.C. Fields was a notorious athiest. Someone once saw him reading the Bible and asked him why an athiest like him was reading the Bible. Fields said he was looking for loopholes.

The only reason leftist judges study the Constitution is to find ways to get around the original intent of the founders. The clear intent of the Constitution is to limit the size of the federal government. When the court interprets the interstate commerce clause to give the federal government power it was never intended to have, they're not abiding by the intentions of the founders.

You are correct. He does risk being fired, my point is why fire a teacher who was obviously getting through to the students.

This issue came to light because a father overheard his daughter talking about it to a friend. She didn't go to him to complain. The teacher got this particular student to talk about a real concrete grown up issue outside of the classroom. Sure he risked being fired, but the system would lose a good teacher.

Think back to the teachers you had in high school, do you remember the ones that just followed a textbook or do you remember the ones that inspired you to think? Originally Posted by fetishfreak

Since all I have seen are comments about this in the news I clearly do not know all the facts. I will agree with you that it is possible that this is being taken out of proportion or context and the people in that community can make that decision. I believe that any radical absolutists are in the minority and the local community can handle this appropriately.

The local community can handle it! I like it!

Isn't that what's happening?

He's an idiot. Burning a flag or stomping on it, is protected speech in a certain context...a political rally, for instance. But, doing it in front of a captive audience of school kids seems over the line to me. He should be fired. Originally Posted by timpage

"Three" captive audiences.

Clearly I failed to make my point.

I respect this teacher's freedom of speech.

I served for over 15 years in the Navy. I believe that the flag is a symbol of what made this country great. It is only a symbol though, liberty is what made this country great. Firing a teacher for using his first amendment right of free speech to provoke discourse of ideas is exactly what we need form our teachers.

This was an honors class, the students in this class deserve the right to be able to work above the fray of petty attempts to indoctrinate children into a politically correct point of view. Originally Posted by fetishfreak

He did it in front of three classes only one of which was identified as "honors".

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...-stomping.html

Where does the article say anything about conservatives? Or liberals for that matter?

It says "the school" punished him for stomping on the flag.

Perhaps you assume they are conservatives because you think liberals like stomping on the American flag? Originally Posted by ExNYer

+1

Who cares about the comments, and not the content of the article? Those comments are no different than comments here. Posted by a bunch of people with all sorts of political leanings and beliefs. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

+1

Timmy, are you serious? You think SC Justices have spent their lives trying to figure out what the Constitution means? What a crock of shit. Justices are appointed because of how they are willing to twist the Constitution in the direction of the current powers that be. How the hell else could legal midgets like Sotomayor or Kagan get on the Court? Or Souter, there was a "brilliant" justice.

The Senate Judiciary Committee makes sure whoever is nominated meets their ideology, not their knowledge. If knowledge was a criterion, Robert Bork would have been Chief Justice. Or Laurence Tribe.

Legal scholars no longer get appointed to the Court. Legal puppets only need apply. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Hell if that is true you could get appointed if you suck up a little.