And yet, both government-mandated and private dress codes (Which governments have found to be perfectly binding), ranging from the length of your shirt's sleeves (At a government-ran school), to the requirement to wear shoes to receive service, to the requirement to wear a particular color of clothing to work (Work dress codes), or to receive service, to the requirement to wear protective gear to work, to the requirement to not wear particular items of clothing in certain contexts (face veils) are all completely enforceable, even when they have nothing to do with obscenity.
It's a entirely unprincipled double-standard when a high school can censure a girl for wearing a halter top with straps that are narrower then three finger widths, but apparently can't enforce a mask mandate.
Regulating commerce is an enumerated power. Regulating dress in public is not. Government can tell you how to dress at work or what you have to require your customers to wear, they can’t tell you how to dress in public. Court cases are frequently won in schools on freedom of expression laws.
The first enumerated power in Seciton 8 of the Constitution states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
The "general Welfare of the United States" could be interpreted to include taking such measure that are necessary for the protection of public health.
As for court cases which recognized freedom of expression in public schools, did any of them do so at the expense of the health of the students, teachers, or the community?
The supreme court is of the opinion that general welfare "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
And i have to say that’s a good opinion, if it was any other way you could basically make it mean anything. Wanting the constitution to mean that your position on one topic has to have broader considerations... if X is allowed with this argument what else would be?
"The supreme court is of the opinion that general welfare "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.""
Well, that's ironic, as it goes against a plain reading of the Constitution.
Strict constructionists must be rolling in their graves.
Comments
And yet, both government-mandated and private dress codes (Which governments have found to be perfectly binding), ranging from the length of your shirt's sleeves (At a government-ran school), to the requirement to wear shoes to receive service, to the requirement to wear a particular color of clothing to work (Work dress codes), or to receive service, to the requirement to wear protective gear to work, to the requirement to not wear particular items of clothing in certain contexts (face veils) are all completely enforceable, even when they have nothing to do with obscenity.
It's a entirely unprincipled double-standard when a high school can censure a girl for wearing a halter top with straps that are narrower then three finger widths, but apparently can't enforce a mask mandate.
Regulating commerce is an enumerated power. Regulating dress in public is not. Government can tell you how to dress at work or what you have to require your customers to wear, they can’t tell you how to dress in public. Court cases are frequently won in schools on freedom of expression laws.
The first enumerated power in Seciton 8 of the Constitution states:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States..."
The "general Welfare of the United States" could be interpreted to include taking such measure that are necessary for the protection of public health.
As for court cases which recognized freedom of expression in public schools, did any of them do so at the expense of the health of the students, teachers, or the community?
The supreme court is of the opinion that general welfare "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."
And i have to say that’s a good opinion, if it was any other way you could basically make it mean anything. Wanting the constitution to mean that your position on one topic has to have broader considerations... if X is allowed with this argument what else would be?
"The supreme court is of the opinion that general welfare "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.""
Well, that's ironic, as it goes against a plain reading of the Constitution.
Strict constructionists must be rolling in their graves.