You may want to read the article again. The police officer contacted the DA thinking that the charge should be felony illegal wiretapping, but decided to only charge the boy with disorderly conduct. This went before a judge who found the boy guilty of misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Actually, that does not require an entire new constitution, just an amendment. I will give that some thought, because at first blush it seems to me that it would be a good thing (the languages part is where I want to think about it).
I would like a constitutional amendment requiring that all federal laws state what provision of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to pass such a law and that if the courts found that that provision did not support what the law did, the law would get thrown out. I would like another amendment that requires that when Congress amends existing legislation, the law making the amendment must contain the entire new form which the law now takes so that all future attempts to understand the law need only look at the most recent version of the law to know everything which is covered under said law.

No, the men who wrote the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights) believed, with some justification, that a standing army would inevitably lead to tyranny.

The U.S. Marine Corps was disbanded in April of 1783. It was re-formed by the Act to Provide a Naval Armament of 1794. So, the person you replied to is, more or less, correct. However, when one considers that the men who wrote the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), for the most part, objected to the idea of a standing army, it makes it clear that they believed it was important that nothing interfere with all able-bodied men possessing the weapons necessary to make war.

But they were not committing that crime during the recording. You seem to be overlooking the fact that there is another exception to the "all-party consent" law. That exception is that it ok to record a conversation which occurs where none of the parties to the conversation have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Such would be the case here.

See, that is where you are misunderstanding my initial post(assuming that you actually bothered to follow the thread of conversation). The presence of those other, uninvolved persons changes the situation so that, according to previous court rulings, you no longer have any expectation of privacy. In which case, as the courts have ruled, I am allowed to record you to my heart's content, even if you are NOT committing any crimes. In any situation where those being recorded have no expectation of privacy, such as when they are in a room full of random individuals (say, a school classroom).
Now, in the situation you described, there are all kinds of reasons why the recording would be legal. First, since you postulated that third-parties would be paid to not give consent, you are postulating that those present knew in advance that there would be a recording. Courts have repeatedly ruled that if you carry on a conversation which you know is being recorded, you are implicitly giving your consent to being recorded. Second, you are postulating that these people are being paid to cover-up your crime (being paid to not consent to being recorded is an attempt to prevent the acquisition of evidence to prove a crime is being committed), which is a crime.
So, to re-iterate: the exception to the all-party consent law of recording criminal activity does not apply because not all of those present were committing a crime. However, the boy was not guilty of violating the wire-tap law because he was recording the conversation in a place where people do not, and should not, have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

That was true until about 1 or 2 years ago, when a judge ruled against the police in cases in several states saying that there had been sufficient rulings against such an interpretation that the police could no longer claim that they thought they were following the law...either they were lying, or their training was criminally inadequate.

Not everyone in the classroom took part in the activity which could be defined as assault, conspiracy to commit assault, or even accessory to assault. So, not everyone being recorded without their permission was committing a crime during the recording.

I recently came across a story where it was stated that the Vice-Principal actually testified at the hearing that the mother had previously reported students bullying her son, which makes the judges confidence in the school doing the right thing even worse.

One of the stories I read contained a summary of the evidence presented at the hearing. The organization which published that story had their own court stenographer present to take down a transcript of the hearing.

According to the law in every all-party consent state that I am aware of. One of the exceptions to those all-party consent laws is when the action is in a place were the people involved have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

In every all-party consent state, courts have repeatedly ruled that it is legal to record police officers while they are carrying out their job because they have no reasonable expectation of privacy while they are carrying out their job.

Yes, we do. He was charged with disorderly conduct for recording what was going on in the classroom.

Actually, almost all all-party consent states have an exception for recording someone who is committing a crime. Of course that would not apply in this case since not all of those recorded were committing a crime (even if the bullying actions recorded crossed over the line into criminal behavior).

Oh, no, they understood and dealt with the actual issue here. They just dealt with it in a manner which is evil. These are the same type of people who covered up for Jerry Sandusky.