Seventh Grader Sues School Over Right to Wear Pro-Life T-Shirt

[Majic Walrus]

Like what type of dress? In either case, a teacher finding something offensive isn't a reason to restrict a child's freedom of expression. Especially if obscenity is restricted already.

If distraction cause education to fail then yes it is a good reason to restrict clothing.

And such people do not make for good teachers.

Practically speaking you cannot fire all teachers that get distracted.

And this is not comparable to teaching sex ed to a 1 grader.

I just mean to point out that there is a time and place and this kind of material isn't for youngin's to be looking at.

No, but you are talking about hacking off a significant limb.

How significant is clothing?

 

[Majic Walrus]

I wanted to add that statistically grades are higher in [public] schools that wear uniforms verses those that don't. Source to follow.

Also uniforms teach professionalism to children as they will eventually have a uniform that they are required to wear.

And any expression that is taken away when uniforms are imposed can be put into a better form of expression (writing, art, etc).

 

[StorminNorman]

If distraction cause education to fail then yes it is a good reason to restrict clothing.

I would rather get rid of the bad teachers.

Practically speaking you cannot fire all teachers that get distracted.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of teachers that get distracted by child's clothing that passes already present obscenity rules.

I just mean to point out that there is a time and place and this kind of material isn't for youngin's to be looking at.

I disagree. I don't think there is anything offensive about a picture of a fetus - it's something you see on TV all the time, it's something you can see on numerous posters at a doctors office, it's something seen on billboards.

How significant is clothing?

Clothing is a significance means of expression. The Supreme Court agrees.

I wanted to add that statistically grades are higher in [public] schools that wear uniforms verses those that don't. Source to follow.

My first hand experience tells a different story: The local schools in my county imposed a school uniform three years ago. The year uniforms were imposed, state standardized test scores went down.

But that's not very scientific, so:

“The notions that school uniforms and zero tolerance for gangs would reduce school disorder and consequently improve student academic performance were not supported.”

http://www.keystosaferschools.com/Reports/Order in the Classroom-Violence, Discipline.pdf

“A negative effect of uniforms on student academic achievement was found.

http://www.members.tripod.com/rockqu/uniform.htm

“What’s more, it’s still unproved to many that having Johnny wear a tie to school, and Susie a plaid skirt, will help them learn better. And critics of uniforms point out that most policies have been adopted at the elementary school level, which is not where the serious problems of violence and gang activity have flared. In fact, when uniforms were tried at Forestville High School in Prince George’s a few years ago,” the kids rebelled,” said guidance counselor Cecilia Smith, because`` it was going to take their individuality away.”

Although dress codes are increasing in popularity throughout the United States, educators do not uniformly agree upon the benefits produced by these regulations. There is no certainty that dress codes reduce school violence or improve academic achievement. Furthermore, strict dress codes, which school officials justify because they are aimed at preventing gang violence, have been adopted in several areas that do not have gang problems, undermining some school official’s justifications.

http://debate.uvm.edu/eesample/084.html

Also uniforms teach professionalism to children as they will eventually have a uniform that they are required to wear.

I would rather have kids...be kids. Again, not a legitimate excuse to infringe on a students freedom of expression.

And any expression that is taken away when uniforms are imposed can be put into a better form of expression (writing, art, etc).

Different forms of expression entirely. Kids not wearing uniforms can write, draw, dance expressively just as easily as those that are.

 

[The Lizard]

dupe

 

[The Lizard]

Wait -- are people arguing against the use of schoolgirl uniforms here?

I must disagree...

 

[Kelly]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_...er_anna_amador_sues_school_on_behalf_of_.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530284,00.html?mep

Two links for the price of one.

Long story short this girl was asked to remove a pro-life shirt on national pro-life shirt day (I know... the fact that there's a day was disturbing to me too) in any case the school claims it was their right and the parents of the child are claiming free speech.

The shirt wasn't that bad but I don't really think that school is a proper forum for spreading political or religious ideas or beliefs. My opinion is that the school should've had uniforms instated a long time ago to prevent something like this from happening.

Either way a pro-life or pro-choice shirt could very easily start a hot button topic and I would understand why the school would ask her to remove it.

The question is not the pro-life t-shirt....the question is, if that t-shirt is allowed, why aren't other t-shirts with logos, with guns, drugs, etc.....

I have no problem with a student wearing a pro-life t-shirt....and its actually been done at the school where I teach....

The problem comes when those students wearing the pro-christian, pro-life, scriptures on the t-shirt etc....have a problem with the t-shirts I mentioned above...

You either let all, or none....IMO.

 

[SentinelMind]

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_...er_anna_amador_sues_school_on_behalf_of_.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,530284,00.html?mep

Two links for the price of one.

Long story short this girl was asked to remove a pro-life shirt on national pro-life shirt day (I know... the fact that there's a day was disturbing to me too) in any case the school claims it was their right and the parents of the child are claiming free speech.

The shirt wasn't that bad but I don't really think that school is a proper forum for spreading political or religious ideas or beliefs. My opinion is that the school should've had uniforms instated a long time ago to prevent something like this from happening.

Either way a pro-life or pro-choice shirt could very easily start a hot button topic and I would understand why the school would ask her to remove it.

I actually half-agree with this post. If student can wear an armband protesting Vietnam, I don't see any problems with wearing a pro-life shirt....assuming she's not running around throwing it in people's face. I'll agree the fetus is gray-area...but no problem with pro-life shirts in general.

However, I actually agree with you 100% on school uniforms. Life would be much simpler with them.

EDIT: Public schools should be about learning, not about fashion and family income politics. Allow school boards to provide level of professionalism and decorum in our classrooms so they are prepared for the real world.

 

[Majic Walrus]

I would rather get rid of the bad teachers.

Your qualifications for "bad" are not practical.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of teachers that get distracted by child's clothing that passes already present obscenity rules.

Perhaps? I think you vastly underestimate the number of teachers that get distracted by children's clothing.

I disagree. I don't think there is anything offensive about a picture of a fetus - it's something you see on TV all the time, it's something you can see on numerous posters at a doctors office, it's something seen on billboards.

TV, doctor's offices, and billboards are not school!

Clothing is a significance means of expression. The Supreme Court agrees.

Significant? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that suppressing that expression will end expression or even deter it. I wear a uniform to work, I feel that I express myself well.

My first hand experience tells a different story: The local schools in my county imposed a school uniform three years ago. The year uniforms were imposed, state standardized test scores went down.

Standardized test scores are irrelevant.

But that's not very scientific, so:


http://www.keystosaferschools.com/Reports/Order in the Classroom-Violence, Discipline.pdf


http://www.members.tripod.com/rockqu/uniform.htm




http://debate.uvm.edu/eesample/084.html

All of your sources were at least a decade old. Do you really think that they are applicable today?

I would rather have kids...be kids. Again, not a legitimate excuse to infringe on a students freedom of expression.

Education isn't a reason enough?

Different forms of expression entirely. Kids not wearing uniforms can write, draw, dance expressively just as easily as those that are.

But uniforms encourage other forms of expression.

 

[bullets]

I think the main problem here is how they treated this girl. Asking her to remove the shirt (provided she had an alternative ) or turn it inside out is acceptable . I can see why they did it.

 

[Majic Walrus]

The question is not the pro-life t-shirt....the question is, if that t-shirt is allowed, why aren't other t-shirts with logos, with guns, drugs, etc.....

I have no problem with a student wearing a pro-life t-shirt....and its actually been done at the school where I teach....

The problem comes when those students wearing the pro-christian, pro-life, scriptures on the t-shirt etc....have a problem with the t-shirts I mentioned above...

You either let all, or none....IMO.

This is also true, someone can be politically in support of the pro-life movement and that's one thing... Can someone be free to support the second amendment with a shirt that shows pictures of weapons?

I doubt it seriously.

 

[Kelly]

This is also true, someone can be politically in support of the pro-life movement and that's one thing... Can someone be free to support the second amendment with a shirt that shows pictures of weapons?

I doubt it seriously.

I respect their beliefs and opinions.....but its all or nothing....and probably the best thing to do is....say "no" to all of them, unless they are a spirit type of t-shirt for the school.

 

[Carcharodon]

If student can wear an armband protesting Vietnam....

Actually, I thought the Supreme Court supported the school in censoring said student(s). So....

 

[StorminNorman]

Your qualifications for "bad" are not practical.

How so? A teacher that allows opinions demonstrated on a child's clothing to impact their ability to perform isn't normal. A teacher that allows a child's non obscene clothing to impact their job isn't normal. A teacher's incompetency is not enough to infringe on a student's constitutional right.

Perhaps? I think you vastly underestimate the number of teachers that get distracted by children's clothing.

I am still finding it hard to even fathom what you are going on about. I mean a teacher being distracted because a kid is wearing a Ron Jon t-shirt? Or a Florida Gators t-shirt? Or a Bush-Cheney 08 t-shirt? Those are people not mature enough to be teaching.

TV, doctor's offices, and billboards are not school!

No, they are not schools. But the are public places that children are exposed to on a daily basis and no one seems to have a problem with. I have never seen a parent try to hide their young child's eyes away from a fetus picture.

Significant? Perhaps, but that doesn't mean that suppressing that expression will end expression or even deter it. I wear a uniform to work, I feel that I express myself well.

You agree to give up that freedom of expression by working for a company - that is your decision. Children don't have that decision, they have to go to school. Public school should not force children to give up constitutionally protected rights.

Standardized test scores are irrelevant.

Not considering that's how schools are judged.

All of your sources were at least a decade old. Do you really think that they are applicable today?

Yes. I don't think children have mutated.

Here is a a study that finished in 2006:

[FONT=&quot]The results do not suggest any significant association between school uniform policies and achievement[/FONT]

Education isn't a reason enough?

No, it isn't. Teaching a lesson isn't grounds to restrict constitutionally protected rights.

But uniforms encourage other forms of expression.

How so? I mean sure, uniforms piss kids off probably leading to them expressing their frustration - but that's not a positive.

 

[StorminNorman]

Actually, I thought the Supreme Court supported the school in censoring said student(s). So....

Actually no, the Supreme Court went against the school. So....

 

[SentinelMind]

Yeah, I remember that case pretty well....the Supreme Court sided with the students...

If there are no school uniforms, then I think non-obscene speech should be protected.

However, I think school uniforms are ideal. I know correlation doesn't equal causation, but here's another report showing positive relationship between school uniforms and orderlines in schools.

http://www.class.uh.edu/faculty/simberman/uniform_draft_2_09.pdf

pdf

 

[Carcharodon]

Actually no, the Supreme Court went against the school. So....

So I am clearly mistaken!

 

[Majic Walrus]

How so? A teacher that allows opinions demonstrated on a child's clothing to impact their ability to perform isn't normal. A teacher that allows a child's non obscene clothing to impact their job isn't normal. A teacher's incompetency is not enough to infringe on a student's constitutional right.

You're putting an awful lot of blame on teachers that I propose we prevent before it occurs.

I am still finding it hard to even fathom what you are going on about. I mean a teacher being distracted because a kid is wearing a Ron Jon t-shirt? Or a Florida Gators t-shirt? Or a Bush-Cheney 08 t-shirt? Those are people not mature enough to be teaching.

We're not talking about just that we're talking about all clothing that isn't uniform. I'm not talking about it being so distracting that the teacher can't think, I'm just talking about it being a distraction. Furthermore we're not just talking about teachers being distracted but other students as well.

You just going to fire them if they get distracted?

No, they are not schools. But the are public places that children are exposed to on a daily basis and no one seems to have a problem with. I have never seen a parent try to hide their young child's eyes away from a fetus picture.

I think you're missing my point. School simply isn't a forum for advertising your belief on your shirts because that is distracting.

You agree to give up that freedom of expression by working for a company - that is your decision. Children don't have that decision, they have to go to school. Public school should not force children to give up constitutionally protected rights.

Children give up this one:
Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Not considering that's how schools are judged.

Irrespective of how schools are judged it's a flawed method. 90% of education professionals would agree I believe.

Yes. I don't think children have mutated.

Here is a a study that finished in 2006:

So just because the facts were true 10 years ago does not make them applicable today and to state so is illogical.

Also your new source, while I like more and am not finished reading yet, seems to be based off studies that started decades ago as well. When talking about school uniforms and whether or not that are good or not certainly a large sample is needed, it is not hard to present a large sample over the past five years without going into detail about studies that started in the seventies.

No, it isn't. Teaching a lesson isn't grounds to restrict constitutionally protected rights.

Teaching is the function of the school. Also I still do not accept that the right to wear clothes that you feel like wearing is protected by the constitution. Throw supreme court if you like but I if you consider that uniforms would be encouraged to prevent harm and promote education then there is little reason for the constitution to fight it.

How so? I mean sure, uniforms piss kids off probably leading to them expressing their frustration - but that's not a positive.

Uniforms "piss kids off"? Hardly as scientific as your doctoral dissertation previously submitted. And probably not altogether true.

I'm talking about encouraging kids to artistically express themselves, not express themselves with Abercrombie and Fitch.

Yeah, I remember that case pretty well....the Supreme Court sided with the students...

If there are no school uniforms, then I think non-obscene speech should be protected.

However, I think school uniforms are ideal. I know correlation doesn't equal causation, but here's another report showing positive relationship between school uniforms and orderlines in schools.

http://www.class.uh.edu/faculty/simberman/uniform_draft_2_09.pdf

pdf

Thanks Sentinel!

From the article: "Overall, we find that uniforms appear to have
a moderately positive impact on students in middle and high school and little impact on elementary students. Students in middle and high school grades who are required to wear uniforms show improvements in scores on language exams of between 0.02 and 0.04 standard deviations and improvements in attendance rates of between 0.2 and 0.4 percentage points."

 

[Kelly]

There is plenty of data out there that shows uniforms as a positive....even standardized dress has positives as well.

IMO, Standardized Dress is better.....its less cost, a little more of a choice for the kiddos, and it gets the same points across.

Discipline is better...
Grades increase...
Tardies decrease...

Its pretty much a positive.

 

[StorminNorman]

You're putting an awful lot of blame on teachers that I propose we prevent before it occurs.

It's blame rightfully placed.

We're not talking about just that we're talking about all clothing that isn't uniform. I'm not talking about it being so distracting that the teacher can't think, I'm just talking about it being a distraction. Furthermore we're not just talking about teachers being distracted but other students as well.

You just going to fire them if they get distracted?

Again, define distraction? I am having a hard time even understanding exactally what you are talking about, surely I am simply misunderstanding because what I think of when you say a "teacher being distracted by non obscene clothing" just isn't a problem.

I think you're missing my point. School simply isn't a forum for advertising your belief on your shirts because that is distracting.

You have the right to express yourself, to advertise your beliefs.

Children give up this one:
Amendment IV


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We are talking about protections already defended by courts.

Irrespective of how schools are judged it's a flawed method. 90% of education professionals would agree I believe.

Only in measure of what a children learns as a whole. In comparing results from the same school year to year - it is credible.

So just because the facts were true 10 years ago does not make them applicable today and to state so is illogical.

Well I am the only one actually providing any studies to support their accusations.

Also your new source, while I like more and am not finished reading yet, seems to be based off studies that started decades ago as well. When talking about school uniforms and whether or not that are good or not certainly a large sample is needed, it is not hard to present a large sample over the past five years without going into detail about studies that started in the seventies.

[FONT=&quot]There are two sources of data for this study, both published by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The first is the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Class. The ECLS-K is a nationally representative cohort of children beginning in their Kindergarten year in the fall of 1998-99. All together, six waves were conducted with the final wave taking place in the Spring of 2004, when the children were attending fifth grade. [/FONT]

The study is using information from studies done 1998-2004.

Teaching is the function of the school. Also I still do not accept that the right to wear clothes that you feel like wearing is protected by the constitution. Throw supreme court if you like but I if you consider that uniforms would be encouraged to prevent harm and promote education then there is little reason for the constitution to fight it.

Well your opinion, frankly, is irrelevant. So is mine. The Court's actually matters, and the court protects it.

Uniforms "piss kids off"? Hardly as scientific as your doctoral dissertation previously submitted. And probably not altogether true.

Resentment against administrators caused by uniforms is real.

I'm talking about encouraging kids to artistically express themselves, not express themselves with Abercrombie and Fitch.

This is a straw man argument because kids that chose to express themselves with Abercrombie and Fitch can express themselves just as easily as if they wear school uniforms. Really, what are you getting at? This point seems incredibly absurd.

 

[Kelly]

In schools where the stardardized dress has worked, the teachers actually had standardized dress the year before it was implemented.

As far as clothes being a problem "in the classroom"....thats not the case. Problems of jealousy, bullying etc, that can come from the clothing issue, starts in the halls and restrooms, and spills over into the classrooms. I have actually had to break up fights over clothes, as dumb as it sounds.....it does happen. It also takes care of a number of other problems...

1. Easier to tell the difference between students, teachers, etc....and people not affiliated with the school....
2. Tardies decrease...
3. Problems that come with baggy pants, oversized t-shirts, low neck lines, high skirts, and other problems that come from trying to enforce a dress code is taken care of....
4. Most of your write-ups, etc are from dress code violations, a standarize dress takes care of that....

Is it an end all to all of these problems, of course not....but it has shown a great number of positives....

As far as negative view of administration....any change in policy can do that, and those that have a major problem with it, that ends up in acting out....usually had other discipline problems before any type of dress code was implemented...

 

[bullets]

in high school i expressed myself by wearing clothes from the salvation army and nike shoes.

 

[Majic Walrus]

It's blame rightfully placed.

You can blame someone before they've done anything wrong?

Again, define distraction? I am having a hard time even understanding exactally what you are talking about, surely I am simply misunderstanding because what I think of when you say a "teacher being distracted by non obscene clothing" just isn't a problem.

Picture a kid with a white t-shirt on his size M body except the shirt is size XXL. He also has 2 foot tall green liberty spikes. Talk about science for an hour and half.

You have the right to express yourself, to advertise your beliefs.

We are talking about protections already defended by courts.

Just because I have something does not mean that I am legally entitled to it.

Only in measure of what a children learns as a whole. In comparing results from the same school year to year - it is credible.

Well I am the only one actually providing any studies to support their accusations.

Measuring one school fails to account for its own variables that become negligible as the sample increases. Also, just because I didn't provide the evidence you'll dismiss evidence that was presented?

The study is using information from studies done 1998-2004.

The paper is using studies that have information that isn't necessarily pertinent because the kind of dress and student has changed in the past decade.

Well your opinion, frankly, is irrelevant. So is mine. The Court's actually matters, and the court protects it.

I'm not now, nor have I ever, made argument to the contrary. I'm not debating what the supreme court has said which seems to be your fallback. A wise poster once said that the law does not represent what is "right" or "wrong".

Resentment against administrators caused by uniforms is real.

So is resentment about classes starting at 7 in the morning. Should we move it back to 10 to better accommodate the child's schedule?

This is a straw man argument because kids that chose to express themselves with Abercrombie and Fitch can express themselves just as easily as if they wear school uniforms. Really, what are you getting at? This point seems incredibly absurd.

I'm talking about providing additional outlets that might not have been explored by the children. When forced to use other methods of expression the students will do that. And they will find more productive means of expression.

 

[StorminNorman]

You can blame someone before they've done anything wrong?

I'm not. I am saying that any teacher that allows their performance be impacted by the clothes of a student (something done after the fact) should be blamed.

Picture a kid with a white t-shirt on his size M body except the shirt is size XXL. He also has 2 foot tall green liberty spikes. Talk about science for an hour and half.

Okay. Easily. A teacher should be able to do their job in their presence.

Just because I have something does not mean that I am legally entitled to it.

...except the courts have stated this is a case where you ARE legally entitled to it. If the Constitution and courts say you have something, that DOES mean you are legally entitled to it...

Measuring one school fails to account for its own variables that become negligible as the sample increases. Also, just because I didn't provide the evidence you'll dismiss evidence that was presented?

I haven't dismissed any evidence that was presented. You have simply said that you will provide sources, and then have not done any. You dismiss scientific studies that completely refute your claim to suit your argument.

The paper is using studies that have information that isn't necessarily pertinent because the kind of dress and student has changed in the past decade.

The study was done from 1998-2004. That's well within reason. I mean the extreme that you presented - a kid wearing an overlarge t shirt and green spikes, is as much a part of 90's culture as it is current culture. It takes time to do studies, which is why the data will be older.

I'm not now, nor have I ever, made argument to the contrary. I'm not debating what the supreme court has said which seems to be your fallback. A wise poster once said that the law does not represent what is "right" or "wrong".

It's my fall back because it what happens to matter. In a question of constitutionality, which is what any discussion of rights is (and this is, ultimately a question of rights) the matter of the courts and the law IS what matters.

Law is different from constitutionally protected rights. Unlawful, unconstitutional revoking of protected rights IS wrong.

So is resentment about classes starting at 7 in the morning. Should we move it back to 10 to better accommodate the child's schedule?

If the discussion was about moving school from 10 to 7, then yes - it should be a factor considered.

I'm talking about providing additional outlets that might not have been explored by the children. When forced to use other methods of expression the students will do that. And they will find more productive means of expression.

This is a hilarious leap in logic.

 

[StorminNorman]

In schools where the stardardized dress has worked, the teachers actually had standardized dress the year before it was implemented.

As far as clothes being a problem "in the classroom"....thats not the case. Problems of jealousy, bullying etc, that can come from the clothing issue, starts in the halls and restrooms, and spills over into the classrooms. I have actually had to break up fights over clothes, as dumb as it sounds.....it does happen. It also takes care of a number of other problems...

1. Easier to tell the difference between students, teachers, etc....and people not affiliated with the school....
2. Tardies decrease...
3. Problems that come with baggy pants, oversized t-shirts, low neck lines, high skirts, and other problems that come from trying to enforce a dress code is taken care of....
4. Most of your write-ups, etc are from dress code violations, a standarize dress takes care of that....

Is it an end all to all of these problems, of course not....but it has shown a great number of positives....

As far as negative view of administration....any change in policy can do that, and those that have a major problem with it, that ends up in acting out....usually had other discipline problems before any type of dress code was implemented...

Evidence?

 

[Majic Walrus]

I'm not. I am saying that any teacher that allows their performance be impacted by the clothes of a student (something done after the fact) should be blamed.

But I'm talking about making it something that we fix before the teacher has a chance to "allow" their performance be impacted.

Okay. Easily. A teacher should be able to do their job in their presence.

To hell with shoulds, we're talking about realistic scenarios.

...except the courts have stated this is a case where you ARE legally entitled to it. If the Constitution and courts say you have something, that DOES mean you are legally entitled to it...

If the constitution says it then yes I am legally entitled. But just because I have it does not necessarily mean that it is a legal right.

I haven't dismissed any evidence that was presented. You have simply said that you will provide sources, and then have not done any. You dismiss scientific studies that completely refute your claim to suit your argument.

I have reasonable problems with your sources. Do you have any reasonable problems with the sources that have been provided for your review? Don't make this an ad hominem.

The study was done from 1998-2004. That's well within reason. I mean the extreme that you presented - a kid wearing an overlarge t shirt and green spikes, is as much a part of 90's culture as it is current culture. It takes time to do studies, which is why the data will be older.

I understand that it takes time to do studies. That's okay, but I want studies published recently that do not draw conclusions based on previous studies from decades ago.

It's my fall back because it what happens to matter. In a question of constitutionality, which is what any discussion of rights is (and this is, ultimately a question of rights) the matter of the courts and the law IS what matters.

Law is different from constitutionally protected rights. Unlawful, unconstitutional revoking of protected rights IS wrong.

This statement, especially that last one is just dumb****ery and ********. The constitution does not make something wrong or right because governments do not govern morality.

You're arguing what has been said and proven, when you have no new thought to be added to a discussion I don't need to have a debate like that void of logical reasons and replaced only with supreme court rulings.

If I wanted to debate what the courts would say I would ask the justices.

If the discussion was about moving school from 10 to 7, then yes - it should be a factor considered.

Maybe we should also serve ice cream for lunch and let them teach themselves.

This is a hilarious leap in logic.

At least it's applied thought and not regurgitation of ideas and concepts that you can't think about beyond "BUT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS NO!"