Student suspended for speaking Spanish in school hallway

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:
Quote:
Do the A2K Community a big favor and reveal your true identity, so that none of us will ever engage you as counsel once you graduate.

You think you speak for the A2K community?

No, why would you ask that question?

Because you presumed to speak for the A2K community. Gosh, I would be better off talking to a fencepost.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

JustanObserver wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Since he has revealed that he has no expertise one can reasonably argue that it would be a greater service to the community for him to identify himself and thus allow A2Kers (at least) to avoid making the mistake to which less informed potential clients may fall prey.

I just handed you your ass and you gloss right over it. Thanks for proving my point.

By the way, I don't need people to "come to my defense." I handle things fine on my own. They were just pointing out how stupid it is to ask for people's information over the web and that I called you're bluff and exposed you on your ignorance.

Yeah, you got me Ace.

To put it mildly. Yes he did.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

That you claim to be a law student who has taken a course on the First Amendment is without substance.

If there is such a thing as a "First Amendment seminar class" in law school, this is the first I've heard about it. I suspect this is an undergrad course.

..... unless Justan has actually claimed to be in Law School .....?

0 Replies

I find it interesting that earlier in this thread Justan said he wasn't an expert, but the farther this thread goes the more he is trying to pass himself off not only as an expert, but as SUPERMAN!

0 Replies

I guess when you got nothing else, there is no recourse left but to attack the messenger. One doesn't have to be Floyd Abrams to realize that Just is essentially correct in his arguments.

0 Replies

But, in all his rantings, he still has NOT proven the students civil rights were violated.
Nor, has ANYONE proven that his civil rights were violated.

Happy searching

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

If there is such a thing as a "First Amendment seminar class" in law school, this is the first I've heard about it. I suspect this is an undergrad course.
..... unless Justan has actually claimed to be in Law School .....?

Actually, I did "claim I was in law school." And yes, there is a "First Amendment Seminar" class. But to take it you have to first pass "Constitutional Law I," then after that you have to pass "Constitutional Law II." Once you take those two classes, there is an elective people can take that focuses on issues that are specific to the First Amendment- "First Amendment Seminar." Great class, and it was taught by a former Judge.

Quote:

I find it interesting that earlier in this thread Justan said he wasn't an expert, but the farther this thread goes the more he is trying to pass himself off not only as an expert, but as SUPERMAN!

No, I'm no expert. The "Superman" comment was in response to being challenged to expose my "true identity." I thought it was funny and the first thing that popped into my head was Superman, so there ya go (which is why I also had this Cool

face after I said it). I'm glad you found it interesting though.

Quote:

But, in all his rantings, he still has NOT proven the students civil rights were violated.
Nor, has ANYONE proven that his civil rights were violated.

Oh Christ, here we go again.

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
If there is such a thing as a "First Amendment seminar class" in law school, this is the first I've heard about it. I suspect this is an undergrad course.
..... unless Justan has actually claimed to be in Law School .....?

Actually, I did "claim I was in law school." And yes, there is a "First Amendment Seminar" class. But to take it you have to first pass "Constitutional Law I," then after that you have to pass "Constitutional Law II." Once you take those two classes, there is an elective people can take that focuses on issues that are specific to the First Amendment- "First Amendment Seminar." Great class, and it was taught by a former Judge.

I see. Are you an L2 then?

0 Replies

Just because you attended a class taught by a former judge does not make his views correct.
Example, At one time blacks were considered property as per a supreme court decision. Now, they are considered people.
This is an area that is constantly open for debate. Just because YOU think his civil rights were violated, doesn't mean they were.
The law is not a hard science. Stop trying to think that it is.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

I see. Are you an L2 then?

L3, starting my last semester next month (and loving it).

ralpheb wrote:

Just because you attended a class taught by a former judge does not make his views correct.
Example, At one time blacks were considered property as per a supreme court decision. Now, they are considered people.
This is an area that is constantly open for debate. Just because YOU think his civil rights were violated, doesn't mean they were.
The law is not a hard science. Stop trying to think that it is.

You're trying too hard, ralph. Let it go.

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

The law is not a hard science. Stop trying to think that it is.

Well, there are certainly some achievers at any law faculty at any university.

But at least to memory, law has some subjects for everyone where they have to work hard (commercial law in my case :wink: ).

0 Replies

ralpheb wrote:

Example, At one time blacks were considered property as per a supreme court decision. Now, they are considered people.

Bullshit--blacks were property because "Persons" as referred to in the constitution were understood by everyone to be slaves:

Article I, Section 2, third paragraph, first sentence reads: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Article I, Section 9, first paragraph reads: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article I, Section 9, fourth paragraph reads: No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. (refers to Article I, Section 2, third paragraph, quoted above)

Article IV, Section 2, third paragraph reads: No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article V, reads in it's entirety: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. (emphasis added--see the passages above)

So what we have is a case of Ralph charging that JustanObserver is peddling bullshit, when in fact, Ralph is peddling bullshit with this "supreme court decision" crapola--clearly demonstrating that Ralph doesn't know what the hell he's on about. Slaves were not people until the ratification of the XIIIth Amendment because the constitution itself clearly made them "unpeople."

0 Replies

Then you'll have studying for the bar exam to look forward to. I'm sure you'll love that. Laughing

0 Replies

Wrong definition of "hard science"

0 Replies

I did a little research on language rights, clearly this is an area that is somewhat of a new frontier as there isn't much caselaw. My contention that the student's Fist Amendment rights were violated is bolstered by Yñiguez v. Mofford.

I cannot conceive of an argument that would allow school administrators to prohibit the speaking of a language other than English in the hallways of the school. Certainly, the admin could prohibit students from speaking at all in the hallway but once you add a language restriction, you run afoul of the Constitution. This is a no brainer, folks.

0 Replies

It is called school policy. If a school sets in place a policy it has the right to take certain actions when a student fails to adhere to such policy.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

It is called school policy. If a school sets in place a policy it has the right to take certain actions when a student fails to adhere to such policy.

You are 100% right. But you don't seem to realize that there was no school policy that said students are only allowed to speak English in this case.

0 Replies

Amigo wrote:

It's a bad idea to come to California. Theres a terrorist on every corner and the liberals are mating with the Mexicans. The Mexican/ Liberal babies are handed over to the ACLU were they are forced to be gay.

Sometimes earthquakes and riots happen simultaneously making it hard too shake off the gay liberal mexican baby from humping your leg.

(the weathers great)

LOL!

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Oh boy. Time to hit the button.

LOL x2!

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

Sturgis wrote:
It is called school policy. If a school sets in place a policy it has the right to take certain actions when a student fails to adhere to such policy.

You are 100% right. But you don't seem to realize that there was no school policy that said students are only allowed to speak English in this case.

He probably just chose to ignore the X replies to his previous posts pointing this out already...

0 Replies

Student suspended for speaking Spanish in school hallway

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know