Student suspended for anti-Confederate flag petition (Florida)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.post-gazette.com/breaking/20040130flagp6.asp

A Tarpon Springs High School student has been suspended for 10 days for circulating an unauthorized petition to ban Confederate flag symbols at the Pinellas County school.

About 100 of her fellow students signed the petition before 16-year-old junior Krista Abram was suspended Tuesday. A letter from the school blamed her for distributing “unauthorized material.”

“I definitely anticipated some kind of consequences for not getting the petition approved,” said Abram, who is biracial and sees the flag as a racist symbol. “But I think 10 days is harsh.”

<snip>

Abram said she was shocked when she started school in August and noticed a classmate wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the Confederate flag. So she started asking questions.

When she didn’t get answers from teachers and administrators, she decided to circulate a petition about the dress code.

[mbperrin]

1. Damn right! Can't let this free speech shit get out of hand!

Next thing, they'll think they have the right to peacefully assemble!

[cass71898]

4. Contact info for the school

Let's let them know what we think...

http://tshs.pinellas.k12.fl.us/


Address:
1411 Gulf Road
Tarpon Springs, FL 34689

Phone:
727-943-4900

Fax:
727-943-4907

[toopers]

6. Of course, free speech applies to both students . . .

the one against the flag and the one wearing the flag!

[mbperrin]

7. I'd like to hear the reason for wearing the flag of a defeated foe.

I mean, a decoration is one thing, but racial hatred is another. Certainly needs to be looked into.

No, I don't think wearing a swastika to school is a good idea, either!

[toopers]

10. Being from the South,

I know that the confederate flag means a lot of different things to different people. I agree wearing that a swastika is not a good idea, but good ideas and bad ideas are equally protected by free speach.

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not permissable because it is a public health issue, where as wearing a symbol is not.

[Bandit]

8. Does it also apply to yelling fire in a crowded theatre?

Isn't that about the same thing as waving a Confederate flag? I consider them both to be just as much of a threat to public safety.

[David__77]

14. Not at all.

How is this so? This is the rationale of those who attempted to twart my own progressive political organizing when I was in high school. Simply because something is controversial does not mean that there is a compelling interest to ban it.

Simply because it's unpopular is not an excuse either. Students expressing unpopular views should be protected from violence, not blamed when their views provoke a response.

Now, if we are to argue that fascist/racist symbols should be barred because of their content, then this is a different case entirely.

[Bandit]

16. There are laws against inciting a riot ~ IMHO waving a conferderate flag

is incitement. You do not have the right even under the freedom of speech amendment to incite one to violence. To me it is the same thing as burning a cross.

[toopers]

18. I disagree with you, and so do the US court systems.

Burning a cross is considered a threat to the individual that the message is targeted. Waving a confederate flagged has not been deemed a threatening symbol by any court system to my knowledge. Hell, even a swastika is protected.

[David__77]

22. What about burning a US flag?

Do you think that should be banned as well?

[toopers]

23. No, I do not.

As long as it is not directed at an individual in a threatening manner and they have a permit to do it. I think it is unfortunate that someone feels they have to do it, but if tht is how they choose to express themselves, well then . . .

[mulethree]

30. that'll go on your permanant record!

heh permit from the fire department? or from the "party officer"?

[Tuttle]

9. So...

the one wearing the shirt should be suspended as well, right?

Is that what you're saying?

Tut-tut

[toopers]

11. Nope, that is not what I am saying.

In a publicly funded organization each person's freedom of speech should be protected. The student who was suspended was not suspended for speaing her mind, but for not following the rules about registering the petition. However, I do think the penalty was excessive.

[Ediacara]

12. Why does a petition count as unauthorized material?

I mean seriously. It wasn't answers to tests. It wasn't pornograohy. It wasn't anything that could be construed as subversive. How can you justify a petition as being something that requires suspension?

[toopers]

13. None of my response are an attempt to justify the penalty.

I have no idea why the school has that rule in place. Read my posts again.

[iverglas]

19. sigh

Of course, free speech applies to both students . . .
the one against the flag and the one wearing the flag!

As do justifiable limitations on the speech of both.

When the exercise of the right of Student A, who is entitled to attend a public school in order to receive an education, is interfered with by the action of Student B, be that action the emission of speech or the emission of spit, there may be justification for interfering with Student B's exercise of his/her rights.

How difficult is this concept to grasp -- really?

Must schools tolerate students jumping up in math class to recite poetry -- regardless of how "political" the poetry? Of course not. To permit students to do that would be to deny other students the opportunity to acquire an education.

Must schools tolerate students preaching creationism in a biology class? Of course not. If students don't like a class, their parents might be able to have them exempted from it or some such thing -- but they may not act in such a way as to interfere with other students' learning.

Surely we have all heard of hostile environment discrimination.

If an employer allows an employee to taunt another employee with racist speech, just for instance, the employer will be guilty of discriminating against the victim employee.

If a school allows one student to taunt another student with racist speech, the school will be guilty of just the same discrimination. The school will have failed to provide the victim student with an equal opportunity to obtain an education.


Whether the wearing of a Confederate flag amounts to racism, and whether it is so intrusive as to interfere in some students' ability to exercise their right to an education in a public shool, and thus whether a school must prohibit it, is of course a debatable issue on which sincere people of goodwill might honestly disagree.

But chanting "free speech!" "free speech!" "free speech!" does NOT settle that question, any more than it settles the question of whether people may be prohibited from shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, or giving false testimony in court, or disclosing military secrets, or uttering death threats -- all of which are speech, and all of which are also generally regarded as actions that may be prohibited.

It would be nice if someone would occasionally debate that issue, the real issue -- whether particular speech can justifiably be prohibited or restricted.

In this case, it's even possible that both students' speech could justifiably be prohibited or restricted. One student might be prohibited from wearing racist symbols in school (even if not on the street), and the other student might be prohibited from distributing written materials in school (even if not on the street).

.

[toopers]

21. Unfortunately, it is debatable as to whether the confederate flag

is racist in the first place. Again, it means a lot of different things to different people. What is the definition we want to use to determine a racist symbol - the number of people that find it objectionable? I don't know, but it sounds like big brother to me. I do not think either individual should have been prohibited or restricted, as long as they followed the rules. Apparently, one student did, and one did not.

There is no mention of "taunting" or or the "shirt wearing" individual attempting to interfere in another persons ability to receive an education. It just sounds like one person did not like what the other was wearing because they found it objectionable.

[iverglas]

24. did you read past the first sentence?

Unfortunately, it is debatable as to whether the confederate flag
is racist in the first place.

If you did, you surely must have noticed that I said THIS:

"Whether the wearing of a Confederate flag amounts to racism, and whether it is so intrusive as to interfere in some students' ability to exercise their right to an education in a public shool, and thus whether a school must prohibit it, is of course a debatable issue on which sincere people of goodwill might honestly disagree."

Was there some part of this that you failed to understand? I'd have thought you would have understood that first bit, since it's pretty much identical to what you said in reply.


What is the definition we want to use to determine a racist symbol - the number of people that find it objectionable? I don't know, but it sounds like big brother to me.

And undoubtedly there are people who would disagree with various restrictions on speech that now exist.

Unfortunately, saying "it sounds like big brother" doesn't quite amount to a reasoned argument for or against anything.


I do not think either individual should have been prohibited or restricted, as long as they followed the rules. Apparently, one student did, and one did not.

I'd imagine you are familiar with the concept of rules being invalid?

I gather that if there had been a rule prohibiting the wearing of the Confederate flag, you might have thought that it was just that kind of rule -- invalid.

Your statement is entirely circular: Thing One is fine because the rule says so, and Thing Two is not fine because the rule says so.

Obviously, the question is not whether Thing One or Thing Two violated an existing rule, it is whether the existing rules are valid.


There is no mention of "taunting" or or the "shirt wearing" individual attempting to interfere in another persons ability to receive an education.

Amazingly, no one suggested that there was.

There are various ways of creating a hostile environment for someone that interferes with his/her ability to exercise a right and denies him/her an equal opportunity to exercise a right. I offered an example to illustrate the concept to which I was referring. I was really not expecting to have my words misinterpreted as meaning that I was saying that Thing One was the exact same thing as Thing Two.


It just sounds like one person did not like what the other was wearing because they found it objectionable.

Does it? And why would what it "sounds like" to YOU be the final word on the subject?

What it might sound like to me is that African-American students are being compelled to endure the sight of an expression of racial hatred as they attempt to go about the business they are entitled to go about in a public school, by the school's failure to prohibit such expressions of racial hatred on school property -- and are thus being treated differentially and discriminatorily by the school, since other students are not required to endure the sight of such expressions of racial hatred.

Me, I don't likely have enough facts to express a firm opinion on that matter. And it might be very difficult to determine whether a student who perceives the wearing of a Confederate flag as an expression of racial hatred is responding reasonably to the speech in question. (That is an issue, obviously; a student who claimed to perceive a Tweety-bird T-shirt as an expression of racial hatred would not be responding reasonbly.)

But the difficulty of a decision does not mean that it cannot or must not be made -- or that "not making" a decision, as apparently was the case here (when the student got no response to her complaints), is not a decision.

.

[mouse7]

34. Nothing debatable. The Confederacy bought and sold people.

While it may be debatable what cause the Union fought the Civil War for, there is no doubt what drove the Confederacy to leave the Union. The Confederacy fought to protect the right to buy and sell people, and profit from their labor.

[Ediacara]

2. Suspended?

For ten days?

At my high school you had to do something that was actually bad, like be in a fight, or be truent, or break a vending machine or something to get suspended especially for TEN days.

I mean seriously.... Unauthorized material should consist of pornography and answer sheets, but not a fucking petition demanding justice!

This is outrageous!

[0rganism]

20. It's part of the general crackdown attitude on youth activism

Can't have the young 'uns getting uppity, nosirreebob.

Racism? That's okay, keeps people ignorant and divided.

Petitioning? Noooo, that might cause people to think. Can't have any thinkers.

[mulethree]

27. 10 days for unauthorized self expression

Ridiculously harsh.

I don't think they should even be requiring authorization for a petition, or call it distribution. Though I assume "circulating" didn't involve distributing literature.

I wouldn't want my kids coming home with Nazi literature that had been passed out by other kids at school. But if a kid wants to take a copy of Mein Kampf to school and read it aloud at lunchtime?

Wouldn't have signed her petition. Rebellion is part of being a teen and he wears a rebel symbol on his shirt? Get used to it. If schools are preparing kids for society they ought to address the issues of dealing with divergent and minority views by the time they get to high school.

[1monster]

3. The Confederate Flag is already disallowed in most all the schools

in my Florida county.

But then, this county, by all measures comes up the best in education in Florida.

Kind of makes us the best of the worst...

[flaminbats]

15. I have mixed feelings on the petition, but support this right of students.

I believe there must either be a uniform that all students must wear, or that symbols must not fall under the scrutiny of the school.

First I believe it is wrong for the state to selectively pick and choose which symbols are appropriate, which campaign shirts will or will not be allowed, and which petitions will be allowed or against the rules. In short, you can never force all students to love one another..but you can be fair by making them all wear a standard uniform to classes.

I support lowering the Confederate Flag on state grounds because that is the government for everyone in South Carolina, but it is wrong to force some people to not wear Confederate Flags if others are allowed to wear symbols with the Rising Son, or the Hammer and Sickle. Doing this would IMHO, send a wrong message to the younger generation.

[davidinalameda]

5. She's a Yankee

that's why she was suspended

[EV1Ltimm]

17. I called my teacher a bad word and got suspended for 2 days...

this student tries to make a stand for her beliefs and gets 5 times the penalty?

"Harsh" is right.

The questions that should be asked is were there ever any warnings? was there any printed guidelines detailing the from said act, or was the student just supposed to figure it out on her own?

[mulethree]

29. she knew

“I definitely anticipated some kind of consequences for not getting the petition approved,” said Abram

[Exultant Democracy]

25. Good thing they are keeping dangerous teenage girls out of school

A confederate flag should be considered on par with wearing a pro Osama Bin Ladin tee shirt. While freedom of speech is protected, treason, and supporting treason is not, and wearing the confederate is supporting treason.

[theHandpuppet]

39. I have to scoff at folks...

... who think the waving of the confederate flag under others' noses isn't meant to intimidate. I can't tell you how many "Jeff Davis (an avowed and unpologetic racist) was right" bumper stickers you can find in the Blue Ridge, usually accompanied by a sticker with an equally threatening message such as, "Happiness Is A Warm Machine Gun." Racial hatred is alive and well in Amerika and so is the KKK, so whatever other meanings that flag may hold for some, it has become the battle flag for those who think freeing the slaves unjustly ended their "way of life".

On a recent trip to a local lumber yard, one which is lavishly decorated with all the usual symbols of militarism and religious fundamentalism, I espied an employee's car in the lot bearing a "Proud to be... A CONFEDERATE-AMERICAN" bumper sticker. Of course this was decorated with a pic of the Confederate battle flag. I was quite upset by this, but am ashamed to admit I was too afraid of those guys to confront them about it. And why? Because I'm an openly gay person in a small WV town. That's no excuse for my failure to speak out, but it just goes to show the power to intimidate which is inherent in that flag.

I invite anyone who believes the Confederate battle flag is nothing more than a harmless symbol for a sentimental view of the "Old South" or for some non-specific, generic rebelliousness to think again. As to the root causes for succession, preserving the abominable institution of slavery cannot be excised from Confederate Succession. The ongoing, determined attempt by modern-day "Southern Partisans" to whitewash the history of the Confederacy is not an attempt to memorialize so much as it is an exercise in denial.

Just a tiny selection of historical documents relating to Southern succession:

Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/secdeccauses.htm

Ordinances of Secession of the 13 Confederate States of America
http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/ordofsecession.htm

Message of Governor Isham Harris to the Tennessee Assembly, Nashville, January 7, 1861
http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/tngovonsecession1.htm

More...
http://www.claremont.org/writings/940415jaffa.html

Lastly, the Confederate "battle flag": the battle standard of today's white supremicists and reich-wing nuts. Just a few examples:
http://www.seek-info.com/race.htm
http://www.geocities.com/southernnation/

And an interesting discussion of this flag: http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Confederate_20Flag_20_22Heritage_22_20Program

Further, anyone who would deny the insidious influence of neo-confederacy in our govt and its policies needs a reality pill. This "Sons of Confederate Veterans" group is the same one that publishes that racist rag, "The Southern Partisan", and they have their tentacles all over the Bushreich! (They were also instrumental in the defeat of Max Cleland in GA) Check this out for a frightening eye-opener:

The Temple of Democracy. Fighting the Neo-Confederate movement and it takeover of Americna politics and policy. See: http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/

Prominent politicians appearing in Southern Partisan Magazine: U.S. House Representative Dick Armey, U.S. Senator John Ashcroft, U.S. Senator Thad Cochran, U.S. Senator Phil Gramm, U.S. Senator Jesse Helms, and U.S. Senator Trent Lott. Index to Southern Partisan magazine, the bi-monthly journal of the same group that made defeating Max Cleland its primary goal in the mid-terms: http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/SouthernPartisanIndex1999.htm

Ashcroft defends "Southern Partisan": http://www.fair.org/press-releases/southern-partisan.html and http://www.fair.org/press-releases/ashcroft.html and http://www.uncletaz.com/ashcroft/

Additional reading : http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/SouthernPartisan.htm http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR011501b.htm

McCain bows to neo-confederates associated with Southern Partisan -- note that Quinn, piublisher of SP, also had ties to Ronald Ray-Gun http://www.tnr.com/013100/soskis013100.html and http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2581

Pat Buchanan and SP: http://www.political.com/gossip-arc/0040.html

The Bush Family and the neo-confederacy: http://www.guerrillanews.com/civil_liberties/doc674.html
http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february00/03confederacy.html

Related links:
http://www.shucks.net/
http://www.pointsouth.com/index.html
http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/SouthernVoice100500.htm
http://www.newnation.org/Archives/confederacy-020418.html

"Southern Partisan T-Shirt Identical to One
Worn By Timothy McVeigh at Time of Arrest"
http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR011501b.htm

Lastly, this young girl doesn't deserve suspension -- SHE DESERVES A MEDAL!!!!!

-- the Handpuppet

[theHandpuppet]

40. Adding to my post...

The state of Tennessee now offers up a Confederate license plate with the Stars and Bars, courtesy of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the group I referred to in my previous post above.

http://www.wkrn.com/Global/story.asp?S=1617142&nav=1ugFKQLl

[IowaBiker]

26. Typical South

No matter how they try to convice the rest of us that they are Americans, southerners continue to demonstrate that they are no more than a hostile nation in occupation.

What is so amusing when reading this now, is that the average southerner believes the US can occupy Iraq and change it in a few years, when the USA has occupied Dixie for over 140 years and this stuff is still happening.

--Brian

[mulethree]

28. Do the homework

I suggest you all read up on how that war got started.

Owning slavery is in the Constitution, so is the right to dissolve your government when it fails to serve it's purpose and that the states were still sovereign states except with regard to the specific federal functions granted by the constitution.

The south got screwed on all those counts ... well don't want to tell you too much ... you should read about it a bit more than they covered in your civics classes.

Interesting war too, Lincolns' eastern General for the first part of the war was evidently grossly incompetent.

The constitution got trampled, so did states rights.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

31. Having two Great-Great Grandfathers who were soldiers wearing

grey, and one Great-Great Grandfather who wore blue, I am torn on the heritage part of things.
Was abolition the right way to go? Yes, of course it was. It was time, past time to end that inhuman bullshit.
Did states have rights that were trampled? Sure. But not when the rights they want to keep violate federal law, and the will of the majority of the citizens of the nation.

So, I personally am not offended by anything anyone wears. I could give a shit, not.
But, it appears to me that if there are people who express offense at an aricle of clothing--which is not religious in nature--it should be the responsibility of the school to moderate such clothing policies.

[flaminbats]

32. One fact that you don't include...

The Confederate Constitution included a provision not put into the U.S. Constitution, that made it unconstitutional for states to secede from the Confederacy! This raises the question was the south interested in rights of any kind, or in merely protecting a region built on slave labor? One other fact that should be included, the Declaration of Independence is what states men should have the means to "alter or abolish" the government when it becomes destructive to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. But neither did the U.S. Constitution never gave states the power to secede from the Union.

Finally, civil rights was the victor during and after the Civil War. The Fourteenth Amendment made it unconstitutional for states to "make or enforce and laws which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

The 13th amendment outlawed slavery, and the 15th amendment gave others the same constitutional voting rights as whites had. The Constitution was and is not a perfect document, and this is why when there is overwhelming agreement for change in the government, this document can and should be amended.

[mulethree]

33. yes, fun bit of history

I agree the whole shebang was about the southern states wanting to keep their slavery. If the new western states were to get added to the union, without sufficient slave-owners in their legislatures, then the 13th amendment could have been passed even without the war to force it on them.

The "passing" of the 14th amendment is a huge embarrassment. They should have kept the rights separate from the debt provisions and left out the bit prohibiting confederates from holding office altogether. It's really weak considering how much courts have granted based on it. It didn't have enough states to be ratified and congress was doing really bogus stuff to get it - really disgusting and a big fight with the president.

I wish they would re-examine 14, determine that it was never ratified and declare it void, invalidate a bunch of court-based precedents, then fix them all through real laws and then do the amendment again with language to prevent some of the court abuses.

But, I think we ought to untangle the whole mess and fix it up right. It's ridiculous that the law should be be a million pages and that new laws come out that add another 2,000 pages and have a thousand little tweaks to the wording of older laws.

[flaminbats]

35. It was logical to bar former Confederates from serving in Congress..

otherwise they would of been likely candidates to represent their states in the Electoral College to choose the President!

But this didn't stop many former Confederates from serving in state government, which is what eventually lead to Jim Crow, the county-unit system, and the tactics used by the KKK against black voters.

I'm disgusted that you would like to see any of the fourteenth amendment voided! Thanks to this we have the due-process clause, the equal protection clause, and it gave everyone born in this nation or naturalized..citizenship. Repeal this, and every immigrant would lose their constitutional rights..as would any child under the age of 14. It also punishes states that do not recognize a citizen's right to vote by reducing its representation in Congress.

Although it may seem obsolete now, making Confederate debts void at the end of that war was a means of protecting taxpayers from loan sharks! The costs of reconstruction, U.S. debts, and westward expansion were large enough. But why dump an illegal debt..financed by criminal aristocrats, as another burden for the American taxpayers to carry?

In short, the 14th amendment made our nation...with immigration, due-process, and equal protection under the law. Without it we would not be the nation of immigrants, in which any person from any place can come to live and still become an American first.

Finally, what do you mean it didn't have enough states behind it?...The eligible votes needed were available for ratification.

[mulethree]

36. disagree

I think if the people of the confederate states wanted to elect those people to the congress that they should have been able to.

As for the debt provisions, I just wish they had made a separate amendment of it. Getting 14 passed was a bitch and It would be nice to have it cleaner, why some states were rejecting and rescinding their ratification. Were they states with big confederate debts? or opposing the rights section? Or perhaps the disability from holding office clauses?

Regarding mis-uses of 14 that I'd like to see undone are the cases granting corporations equal rights as people. Imagine if it had been written unambiguously enough to avoid that, or "separate-but-equal"?

It didn't have enough states to ratify it. Congress tried locking the opponents out - president said the constitution doesn't let you. So they declared that the southern state governments were illegal - president said thats not what you said when 13'th amendment was ratified. So they worked a couple of reconstruction acts to take over the southern state governments by force and force them to ratify it - president said you can't do that - so they tried to impeach him - almost did it. He was vetoing all these proposals on constitutional grounds and they were overriding the vetoes. Eventually it seems congress got it's way and wouldn't accept any southern state governments unless they passed 14 and 15.

So, if the supreme court were to look into it. And the presidents arguments for the radical reconstruction acts all seemed legitimate to me, they could find that the lockout, the military intervention into state governments and such, meant that the emplaced governments were constitutionally invalid. Nullify 14. Surely there would be an uproar and a rush to re-do it. But hopefully somewhat more clearly and codifying in law and the constitution, the good stuff the courts decided on it while ruling out the crummy stuff the courts did with it.

14, and 15 were necessary. The southern states were making a lot of far out racist laws after 13 went through. After 15 went through and the southern blacks were assured votes, the situation came under control.

Very messy phase, but like I said the constitution took a lot of abuse and they didn't fix or even address a lot of it, just strong armed because they had a big majority - which they obtained by excluding the affected states. Legislation without representation, let them back in the union and then - after the fact - essentially kick them out again until they submit. They should have found a better way, a legal way. They fixed the specific case by unleashing the black vote. But I don't think they fixed the problem of resolving a major disagreement without suspending the constitution.

Hey, I only recall one amendment process - ERA - and that was pretty messy.

But like I said a million pages of intertwined laws is ridiculous. In computers we would call it hopeless spaghetti-code and start from scratch. Make the laws more general-purpose. Remove the stupid redundant legaleze. Make it all fit in one book that common people can hope to understand.

[flaminbats]

37. disagreeing with reality can be a sign of insanity...

your view of history is slightly warped. First of all, Lincoln signed an order that re-established the court system to enforce the law when the war ended. Southerners were given political rights again under the Constitution. Later Johnson would provide amnesty for all who had participated in the rebellion, with the exceptions of officers, those with more than $20,000 of taxable income, and those who left U.S. government jobs to join the Confederacy. Instead those cases would have to receive individual pardons, which over 13,000 did in 1865 alone.

The 13th amendment was ratified by 27 states, including North Carolina, Georgia, and Oregon. As far as the 14th amendment goes, there was nothing bad about it...I still consider it one of the defining parts of the Constitution. As I have said before, you better know what you wish to do when amending the constitution..because it happens so rarely!

And what's this shit about strongarming? Reconstruction was the period of Governors like Rufus Bullock who fought consistantly to defend victims against terrorists like the KKK and those who would eventually create Jim Crow. What about the fact that all U.S. Senators back then were selected by state legislators, not by the people? And I hardly think the 14th amendment has anything to do with corporations...they existed before this amendment and existed afterward. Nothing in the 14th amendment makes a corporation a person!

It appears that you don't want blacks voting, only white wealthy males to have rights, and that slavery shouldn't be unconstitutional. The Constitution is understandable for anyone who bothers to read it, and personally I'm proud of this document. Simplicity and Constitutional protections don't aways go together. But simplicity does allow for destroying freedom, ruling others, and not taking all citizens into account. It would hurt us all if we abolished these amendments. If you are upset about something, while not talk about having a President elected by the people..not the Selectoral College? Then you could argue for a reform that would benefit us all, not enslave or imprison half of America!

One last note, the Confederates receiving amnesty could hold office. The only ones banned were those meeting the categories listed earlier, who had not received a pardon. This was logical..to only have pardoned citizens run for federal offices. And most receieved pardons including individuals like Alexander Stephens and John Gordon. In fact those like Governor Joe Brown and General Longstreet, after being pardoned, actually played an active role in urging southerners to support reconstruction! Only those not wanting pardons could not hold Federal Office, and logically it wouldn't be right to allow an unpardoned traitor to run for Federal Office. Only a few very bitter and rascist figures chose not to accept one...like Jeff Davis and those fleeing to Brazil after the war.

[mulethree]

46. i'm sure its warped, history is always warped

#your view of history is slightly warped. First of all, Lincoln
#signed an order that re-established the court system to enforce the
#law when the war ended. Southerners were given political rights
#again under the Constitution. Later Johnson would provide amnesty
#for all who had participated in the rebellion, with the exceptions
#of officers, those with more than $20,000 of taxable income, and
#those who left U.S. government jobs to join the Confederacy. Instead #those cases would have to receive individual pardons, which over
#13,000 did in 1865 alone.

#The 13th amendment was ratified by 27 states, including North #Carolina, Georgia, and Oregon.

So at this point you have valid governments, of pardoned southerners, participating in congress and ratifying constitutional amendments. Here please look at what happened next. The Radical Republicans and how they got from here, thru to the passage of 14 and 15. All I am saying is the process they used to achieve it, involved abuse of a huge congressional majority achieved through forcibly eliminating their opponents from congress, violating the constitution, and gross attacks on the President who opposed the radical "strong-arming".


# As far as the 14th amendment goes, there was nothing bad about
# it...I still consider it one of the defining parts of the
# Constitution. As I have said before, you better know what you wish
# to do when amending the constitution..because it happens so rarely!
..snip..
# And I hardly think the 14th amendment has anything to do with
# corporations...they existed before this amendment and existed
# afterward. Nothing in the 14th amendment makes a corporation a
# person!

Right. Since then corporate rights have been built up based on numerous court cases that used the 14th amendment as justification. I'm saying - what if? it were struck down and replaced with something that cannot be interpreted as giving human rights to corporations?

#It appears that you don't want blacks voting, only white wealthy
#males to have rights, and that slavery shouldn't be
#unconstitutional.

No didn't say that. Now I am a modern man looking from a 2004 retrospect, but why not establish equality for all mankind in the process? Including women, and outlaw all discrimination. Why make the slaves into free men, but not give them land? If you can outlaw confederate debt, why can't you declare that the landowners are responsible to give their slaves?

Can't get fired for talking to the press? speaking freely? Expressing yourself? bearing your arms to work? refusing to be searched or drug tested? refusing to self-incriminate? can't have your pay docked without due process?

#The Constitution is understandable for anyone who
#bothers to read it, and personally I'm proud of this document.

Sure. I am just saying the 14th should have been written with more care, by calmer heads. The means used to achieve the ends of 14 and 15 were dubious and if the system truly required such outrageous means, then they should have addressed proscribing a better means for making large changes in the future.

[jsw_81]

38. I'd love to be suspended for something like this

She could probably write an essay about it and get into Harvard.

[veganwitch]

41. fucking florida again!!!

it never stops! im going to start keeping a list of all the bassackward shit coming from this state.

[kclown]

42. It isn't necessary to draw a conclusion

about the flag in order to consider the free-speech issue of
circulating a petition.  If the flag were already banned, and
she circulated a petition to allow it, the issue would be
exactly the same.

[cprompt]

43. Heritage

Being that I was born and raised in Mississippi and now reside in Memphis I have always loved how people who aren't from the South or ever even been to the South (no Florida is not a southern state) think they know a damn thing about it. The student wearing the confederate flag has every right in the world to wear that shirt or waive that flag if they feel like it. Just because you interpret the flag to mean whatever you do, does not give you the right to take that away from anyone. If I were to say that a black panther poster on a college campus offended me, I would immediately be labeled a racist. Although the idea of both of these groups offend me, THEY ARE ALLOWED. So I accept that our freedoms come with things I do like and don't like and shut up about it and move on. The South IS different from the rest of the country. I have spent the last 4 years traveling the US. The South is the only area where larger cities are predominately black. If you live in Idaho or New England, you don't even have a clue what racism is. Prime example of what I mean. Back in my late teens I worked at a local grill, a rather attractive girl moved down from Rochester, NY. Apparently she had been misinformed in school, she honestly didn't believe all people down South wore shoes. She always harped about how everyone here is a racist, within 2 months she was running around calling blacks the n word. Most of the people who cry and scream about racism know little to nothing of it and can probably tell you the exact number of blacks they have had in their house as proof they are not. Until you have lived in an area that is not 90% and up white, you cannot inform me or any other Southerner on the problems with racism.

Memphis, TN Seattle, WA
White: 215,213 White: 401,301
Black: 409,614 Black: 37,838

Atlanta, GA Minneapolis, MN
White: 162,616 White: 228,159
Black: 243,793 Black: 73,027

New Orleans, LA State of Vermont
White: 128,272 White: 576,468
Black: 309,672 Black: 4,234

Taken straight from census.gov. Look at the comparison. There is more black people in any one of these southern cities than there is in the entire northern list. The reason for all of this is simple. Unless you have lived in the South or a larger metro area like New York, Chicago, etc. you can't possibly understand real racism since odds are you have never seen it in real life.

[Bandit]

44. It is more than racism ~ It is a symbol of Treason

Granted the Racist elements like KKK have adopted the flag as their symbol but the real offensive nature of the flag is that it is a symbol of Treason. The South declared war on the North and set about to destroy the Nation. That is Treason any way you look upon it. You want to wave a treasonous flag in the face of Americans then you should be prepared for anything that may happen to you.

[Fleshdancer]

45. A 10 day suspension for an "unathorized petition" is a bit harsh

I can see a day or two of detention, but 10 days of suspension? For a petition? Would the punishment have been the same if the petition was about adding tofu hotdogs to the lunch menu?