Read this excerpt from the majority opinion on tinker v. des moines: in meyer v. nebraska, 262 u. s. 390 (1923), and bartels v. iowa, 262 u. s. 404 (1923), this court, in opinions by mr. justice mcreynolds, held that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment prevents states from forbidding the teaching of a foreign language to young students. statutes to this effect, the court held, unconstitutionally interfere with the liberty of teacher, student, and parent. what is the reasoning in this argument?

If preventing the teaching of a foreign language violates people's rights, then preventing freedom of expression, such as wearing armbands, is also a violation of rights.

Explanation:

Three understudies in Des Moines, Iowa, were suspended from school for wearing black armbands to challenge the Government's strategy in Vietnam. They looked for ostensible harms and a directive against a control that the respondents had proclaimed forbidding the wearing of armbands.

The District Court expelled the grumbling on the ground that the direction was inside the Board's capacity, in spite of the nonappearance of any finding of significant obstruction with the lead of school exercises.

The reasoning in this argument from this excerpt from the majority opinion on Tinker v. Des Moines is: If preventing the teaching of a foreign language violates people's rights, then preventing freedom of expression, such as wearing armbands, is also a violation of rights.