202k views
0 votes
Which fact from the Tinker v. Des Moines court decision best supports the

reasoning that the conduct of the student protesters was protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits deprivation of life, liberty, or
property?

1 Answer

2 votes

Which fact from the Tinker v. Des Moines court decision best supports the reasoning that the conduct of the student protesters was protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits deprivation of life, liberty, or

property?

O

A. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore

buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even

wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism.

O

B. On the other hand, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the need

for affirming the comprehensive authority of the States and of

school officials, consistent with fundamental constitutional

safeguards, to prescribe and control conduct in the schools.

C. The action of the school authorities appears to have been based

on an urgent wish to avoid the controversy which might result

from the expression, even by the silent symbol of armbands, of

opposition to this nation's part in the conflagration in Vietnam.

D. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere

platitudes.

Answer:

D. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual. if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes

Step-by-step explanation:

The Tinker vs Des Moines Independent Community School District case which was decided by the Supreme Court ruled that the students' use of armbands represented free speech to and was not bound by the actions of the people that participated in it.

It also ruled that the school could not alienate their constitutional rights as the actions of the students in no way substantially interfere with the operation of the school.

User Jo Colina
by
5.0k points