Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[Quantum Windbag]

You're the only one claiming such a difference.

A constitutional right is a citizen's right to something that is protected by the constitution of his country. He might not even have to be a citizen.

No one of any consequence disagrees with that definition. That you want to live in your own manufactured fantasy world is your choice.

I am not the only one claiming such a difference, there are, quite literally, hundreds of books about the difference. Even among people who prefer not to use the term entitlement because of the negative connotations there is a recognition of the difference between positive and negative rights. To spell it out for the political nincompoops, like yourself, a negative right is something that prevents you from hurting me, and a positive right is something that obliges you to do something for me.

Look it up.

There are hundreds of books but you can't name any. If I name some books about psychic power or time travel does that prove the existence of same?

Did I say I cannot name any? Or did you just assume that because you are a brain dead nincompoop? If you want to know a few of them you can start here.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_20/180-0636308-3440567?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=political+philosophy&sprefix=political+philosophy%2Caps%2C252]Amazon.com: political philosophy: Books[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

I want you to name the schools you knew of when you made the original statement.

Why? I backed up my opinion with sufficient documentation. If you don't think it is sufficient then now it is your turn to show where I'm wrong about that. Go for it. I'm afraid in conversations I've had with folks about this that we didn't spend any time listing schools. A grevous oversight I know, but I really wasn't preparing for this thread at the time.

There are NO accredited law schools in America that do not study the US Constitution. Period.

Prove it. Show your documentation. I posted the topics included in Constitutional Law at Harvard and I'm pretty sure there are no classes there that focus on the Constitution and the language, content, purpose, and intent of each clause.

So find me some law schools that do. Should be simple since you are so absolutely certain of your statement of fact. (Again, I have lawyer friends who are not at all as certain about that as you are and they have been to law school and passed the bar.)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why? I backed up my opinion with sufficient documentation. If you don't think it is sufficient then now it is your turn to show where I'm wrong about that. Go for it. I'm afraid in conversations I've had with folks about this that we didn't spend any time listing schools. A grevous oversight I know, but I really wasn't preparing for this thread at the time.

There are NO accredited law schools in America that do not study the US Constitution. Period.

Prove it. Show your documentation. I posted the topics included in Constitutional Law at Harvard and I'm pretty sure there are no classes there that focus on the Constitution and the language, content, purpose, and intent of each clause.

So find me some law schools that do. Should be simple since you are so absolutely certain of your statement of fact. (Again, I have lawyer friends who are not at all as certain about that as you are and they have been to law school and passed the bar.)

I posted a page you ignored it.

 

[Foxfyre]

There are NO accredited law schools in America that do not study the US Constitution. Period.

Prove it. Show your documentation. I posted the topics included in Constitutional Law at Harvard and I'm pretty sure there are no classes there that focus on the Constitution and the language, content, purpose, and intent of each clause.

So find me some law schools that do. Should be simple since you are so absolutely certain of your statement of fact. (Again, I have lawyer friends who are not at all as certain about that as you are and they have been to law school and passed the bar.)

I posted a page you ignored it.

I didn't ignore it. I glanced at it and it pretty well confirmed everything I've been saying about it. No reference in ANY of the prospectuses re the Founders and foundations of the Constitution, original intent, the concepts intended to be built into it. Just a lot of stuff on how the Constitution has been interpreted and applications of judicial rulings, etc.

I'm sorry but I was blessed with a course on the Constitution. I KNOW what is included in such a course. And I see nothing at Harvard even coming close to that.

Which of course goes back to this thread. Is a parent's right to homeschool a child a fundamental unalienable right? Under the original intent of the Constitution, it absolutely is.

And I am going to guess no more than a handful of Harvard law students can even competently express what an unalienable right is, much less what that has to do with a law education or government.

 

[Unkotare]

I didn't ignore it. I glanced at it and it pretty well confirmed everything I've been saying about it. No reference in ANY of the prospectuses re the Founders and foundations of the Constitution, original intent, the concepts intended to be built into it. Just a lot of stuff on how the Constitution has been interpreted and applications of judicial rulings, etc.

I'm sorry but I was blessed with a course on the Constitution. I KNOW what is included in such a course. And I see nothing at Harvard even coming close to that.

You were "blessed" with A course? As in one course?

 

[Foxfyre]

I didn't ignore it. I glanced at it and it pretty well confirmed everything I've been saying about it. No reference in ANY of the prospectuses re the Founders and foundations of the Constitution, original intent, the concepts intended to be built into it. Just a lot of stuff on how the Constitution has been interpreted and applications of judicial rulings, etc.

I'm sorry but I was blessed with a course on the Constitution. I KNOW what is included in such a course. And I see nothing at Harvard even coming close to that.

You were "blessed" with A course? As in one course?

One course focused specifically on the Constitution as a stand alone document and including the history and basis for it, yes. With a competent professor, which I had, and good materials, which we had, three semester hours was sufficient to get a handle on it.

 

[Unkotare]

I didn't ignore it. I glanced at it and it pretty well confirmed everything I've been saying about it. No reference in ANY of the prospectuses re the Founders and foundations of the Constitution, original intent, the concepts intended to be built into it. Just a lot of stuff on how the Constitution has been interpreted and applications of judicial rulings, etc.

I'm sorry but I was blessed with a course on the Constitution. I KNOW what is included in such a course. And I see nothing at Harvard even coming close to that.

You were "blessed" with A course? As in one course?

One course focused specifically on the Constitution as a stand alone document and including the history and basis for it, yes. With a competent professor, which I had, and good materials, which we had, three semester hours was sufficient to get a handle on it.

You took ONE COURSE and you are not only an expert on the Constitution, but are qualified to analyze, judge, and dismiss Harvard Law and every other law school in the country based on your unique insight of a course description? Could you be any more ridiculous? I guess I must be a super-duper expert since I've taken several courses on the US Constitution in my time. Funny how neither one of us is an attorney, judge, professor, or makes a living as a Constitutional scholar, huh? Us being super experts and all, right? Get a fucking grip already.

 

[Luissa]

I didn't ignore it. I glanced at it and it pretty well confirmed everything I've been saying about it. No reference in ANY of the prospectuses re the Founders and foundations of the Constitution, original intent, the concepts intended to be built into it. Just a lot of stuff on how the Constitution has been interpreted and applications of judicial rulings, etc.

I'm sorry but I was blessed with a course on the Constitution. I KNOW what is included in such a course. And I see nothing at Harvard even coming close to that.

You were "blessed" with A course? As in one course?

One course focused specifically on the Constitution as a stand alone document and including the history and basis for it, yes. With a competent professor, which I had, and good materials, which we had, three semester hours was sufficient to get a handle on it.

Actually if Foxfyre knew how to do research she would have been able to look up the course catalog at Harvard, and see there are many classes on the constitution.

I found it in about 30 seconds, and it lists many courses on many different aspects of the constitution including history, amendments, clauses, etc..
And like her I have a lawyer friend, and I remember him specifically telling me what they covered in law school in regards to the constitution.
Of course that isn't even mentioning what a prof might cover in a different course. I guess some dont have common sense, or very good google skills.

 

[Agit8r]

here ya go. Merry X-mas

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
-- from UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Course we aren't absolutely bound by that, but good to know that the New World Order is watching out for y'all, huh

 

[Foxfyre]

You were "blessed" with A course? As in one course?

One course focused specifically on the Constitution as a stand alone document and including the history and basis for it, yes. With a competent professor, which I had, and good materials, which we had, three semester hours was sufficient to get a handle on it.

Actually if Foxfyre knew how to do research she would have been able to look up the course catalog at Harvard, and see there are many classes on the constitution.

I found it in about 30 seconds, and it lists many courses on many different aspects of the constitution including history, amendments, clauses, etc..
And like her I have a lawyer friend, and I remember him specifically telling me what they covered in law school in regards to the constitution.
Of course that isn't even mentioning what a prof might cover in a different course. I guess some dont have common sense, or very good google skills.

Foxfyre may not be the best at research--never claimed to be--but she can read a prospectus, she can hear what those who have been there say about it, and can pay attention to those who know what they are talking about. And she knows that the title of a college course and/or a piece of legislation or program or whatever can bear little resemblance to what is included in it. And she knows that teaching case law, Supreme Court decisions, and legal application is not the same thing as teaching Constitution.

(Good Lord, I'm sounding worse than Dante referring to myself in third person.)

Based on lawyer friends I have, what I have read, and what others have said, I will stand by my opinion that it is a rare law school, if any, that teaches Constitution any more. They teach case law with references to the Constitution. Not the same thing. You will need to look long and hard to find college courses these days that even mention the Founders and/or the founding principles that formed the basis for the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

here ya go. Merry X-mas

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
-- from UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Course we aren't absolutely bound by that, but good to know that the New World Order is watching out for y'all, huh

Education should be free? So we don't need schools? Don't need to pay teachers? Don't need to pay for light, heat, blackboards, chalk, paper, waste baskets, janitors? I think even the New World Order people know that things like that don't materialize out of thin air and somebody somewhere has to build them and/or provide them.

So good. Then they agree. Home schooling is the only way to go. Doesn't require a dime from anybody but what the parents wish to spend on their own kids.

 

[Luissa]

One course focused specifically on the Constitution as a stand alone document and including the history and basis for it, yes. With a competent professor, which I had, and good materials, which we had, three semester hours was sufficient to get a handle on it.

Actually if Foxfyre knew how to do research she would have been able to look up the course catalog at Harvard, and see there are many classes on the constitution.

I found it in about 30 seconds, and it lists many courses on many different aspects of the constitution including history, amendments, clauses, etc..
And like her I have a lawyer friend, and I remember him specifically telling me what they covered in law school in regards to the constitution.
Of course that isn't even mentioning what a prof might cover in a different course. I guess some dont have common sense, or very good google skills.

Foxfyre may not be the best at research--never claimed to be--but she can read a prospectus, she can hear what those who have been there say about it, and can pay attention to those who know what they are talking about. And she knows that the title of a college course and/or a piece of legislation or program or whatever can bear little resemblance to what is included in it. And she knows that teaching case law, Supreme Court decisions, and legal application is not the same thing as teaching Constitution.

(Good Lord, I'm sounding worse than Dante referring to myself in third person.)

Based on lawyer friends I have, what I have read, and what others have said, I will stand by my opinion that it is a rare law school, if any, that teaches Constitution any more. They teach case law with references to the Constitution. Not the same thing. You will need to look long and hard to find college courses these days that even mention the Founders and/or the founding principles that formed the basis for the Constitution.

It took me about 30 seconds to find such a course at Harvard Law School.
I am sorry it was so hard for you. I wonder now if it really was that easy for you to understand the course you have claimed to take.


As for paying for education, Thomas Jefferson is just one founding father who believed in funding public education, and setting up a system in the new country he had helped formed.
Yes someone has the right to be home schooled, but if you don't think the founding fathers wanted the public to have the right to an education. You should go take a few more history courses.

Now please continue to blow smoke etc.... It's what you are good at.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually if Foxfyre knew how to do research she would have been able to look up the course catalog at Harvard, and see there are many classes on the constitution.

I found it in about 30 seconds, and it lists many courses on many different aspects of the constitution including history, amendments, clauses, etc..
And like her I have a lawyer friend, and I remember him specifically telling me what they covered in law school in regards to the constitution.
Of course that isn't even mentioning what a prof might cover in a different course. I guess some dont have common sense, or very good google skills.

Foxfyre may not be the best at research--never claimed to be--but she can read a prospectus, she can hear what those who have been there say about it, and can pay attention to those who know what they are talking about. And she knows that the title of a college course and/or a piece of legislation or program or whatever can bear little resemblance to what is included in it. And she knows that teaching case law, Supreme Court decisions, and legal application is not the same thing as teaching Constitution.

(Good Lord, I'm sounding worse than Dante referring to myself in third person.)

Based on lawyer friends I have, what I have read, and what others have said, I will stand by my opinion that it is a rare law school, if any, that teaches Constitution any more. They teach case law with references to the Constitution. Not the same thing. You will need to look long and hard to find college courses these days that even mention the Founders and/or the founding principles that formed the basis for the Constitution.

It took me about 30 seconds to find such a course at Harvard Law School.
I am sorry it was so hard for you. I wonder now if it really was that easy for you to understand the course you have claimed to take.


As for paying for education, Thomas Jefferson is just one founding father who believed in funding public education, and setting up a system in the new country he had helped formed.
Yes someone has the right to be home schooled, but if you don't think the founding fathers wanted the public to have the right to an education. You should go take a few more history courses.

Now please continue to blow smoke etc.... It's what you are good at.

I'm sure you can post a link to the prospectus of the class you say meets my criteria for teachng Constitution? Or are you one who rarely reads below the headlines or course title?

And yes, Jefferson was huge on public education at the STATE level, not fedeal level. And he was 100% opposed to it being made mandatory that parents put their children into public schools as he felt that violated everything the Constitution was designed to protect. He was further opposed to the state choosing the text book or curriculum to be used in the classroom but thought that should be left to the teacher.

Jefferson, in other words, saw homeschooling or the rights of parents to determine the education of their children as an unalienable right.

 

[Luissa]

Foxfyre may not be the best at research--never claimed to be--but she can read a prospectus, she can hear what those who have been there say about it, and can pay attention to those who know what they are talking about. And she knows that the title of a college course and/or a piece of legislation or program or whatever can bear little resemblance to what is included in it. And she knows that teaching case law, Supreme Court decisions, and legal application is not the same thing as teaching Constitution.

(Good Lord, I'm sounding worse than Dante referring to myself in third person.)

Based on lawyer friends I have, what I have read, and what others have said, I will stand by my opinion that it is a rare law school, if any, that teaches Constitution any more. They teach case law with references to the Constitution. Not the same thing. You will need to look long and hard to find college courses these days that even mention the Founders and/or the founding principles that formed the basis for the Constitution.

It took me about 30 seconds to find such a course at Harvard Law School.
I am sorry it was so hard for you. I wonder now if it really was that easy for you to understand the course you have claimed to take.


As for paying for education, Thomas Jefferson is just one founding father who believed in funding public education, and setting up a system in the new country he had helped formed.
Yes someone has the right to be home schooled, but if you don't think the founding fathers wanted the public to have the right to an education. You should go take a few more history courses.

Now please continue to blow smoke etc.... It's what you are good at.

I'm sure you can post a link to the prospectus of the class you say meets my criteria for teachng Constitution? Or are you one who rarely reads below the headlines or course title?

And yes, Jefferson was huge on public education at the STATE level, not fedeal level. And he was 100% opposed to it being made mandatory that parents put their children into public schools as he felt that violated everything the Constitution was designed to protect. He was further opposed to the state choosing the text book or curriculum to be used in the classroom but thought that should be left to the teacher.

Jefferson, in other words, saw homeschooling or the rights of parents to determine the education of their children as an unalienable right.

Which I stated. You can't read well can you?
Look up yourself, it's pretty easy. It's under Harvard Law School course catalog.
Jefferson always said he was for states rights, and not a stronger central government, of course he triple the size of the federal government while in office. I tend to go off of actions not words. Think of it this way, it's like when republicans claim they want the government out of their life, but have no problem with it being in someone else's.
see how that works?

I will say it again though, because it is hard for you to get a grasp on things today. I agree with someone's right to home school their child. I also believe public education is a right, common sense for one says so, along with probably a thousand cases.

Furthermore, I have never understood why people like QW and other cons don't think the constitution is a living document. The founding fathers were some of the most intelligent men, and through writings it is very clear they considered the future quite a bit. Reading this thread I really have to wonder what world some live in. For one, they seem pretty naive.

 

[Luissa]

Foxfyre may not be the best at research--never claimed to be--but she can read a prospectus, she can hear what those who have been there say about it, and can pay attention to those who know what they are talking about. And she knows that the title of a college course and/or a piece of legislation or program or whatever can bear little resemblance to what is included in it. And she knows that teaching case law, Supreme Court decisions, and legal application is not the same thing as teaching Constitution.

(Good Lord, I'm sounding worse than Dante referring to myself in third person.)

Based on lawyer friends I have, what I have read, and what others have said, I will stand by my opinion that it is a rare law school, if any, that teaches Constitution any more. They teach case law with references to the Constitution. Not the same thing. You will need to look long and hard to find college courses these days that even mention the Founders and/or the founding principles that formed the basis for the Constitution.

It took me about 30 seconds to find such a course at Harvard Law School.
I am sorry it was so hard for you. I wonder now if it really was that easy for you to understand the course you have claimed to take.


As for paying for education, Thomas Jefferson is just one founding father who believed in funding public education, and setting up a system in the new country he had helped formed.
Yes someone has the right to be home schooled, but if you don't think the founding fathers wanted the public to have the right to an education. You should go take a few more history courses.

Now please continue to blow smoke etc.... It's what you are good at.

I'm sure you can post a link to the prospectus of the class you say meets my criteria for teachng Constitution? Or are you one who rarely reads below the headlines or course title?

And yes, Jefferson was huge on public education at the STATE level, not fedeal level. And he was 100% opposed to it being made mandatory that parents put their children into public schools as he felt that violated everything the Constitution was designed to protect. He was further opposed to the state choosing the text book or curriculum to be used in the classroom but thought that should be left to the teacher.

Jefferson, in other words, saw homeschooling or the rights of parents to determine the education of their children as an unalienable right.

Your last paragraph still cracks me up though. I am trying to find where I said Jefferson didn't think it was a right?
I think I just mentioned how he wanted public education. I will never understand why some try to word their answers like I have a certain point of view. Usually they are wrong. QW does it quite a bit, I see you are a fan of this trick too.
It's kind of like when you call Obama or a liberal a communist.

 

[Foxfyre]

It took me about 30 seconds to find such a course at Harvard Law School.
I am sorry it was so hard for you. I wonder now if it really was that easy for you to understand the course you have claimed to take.


As for paying for education, Thomas Jefferson is just one founding father who believed in funding public education, and setting up a system in the new country he had helped formed.
Yes someone has the right to be home schooled, but if you don't think the founding fathers wanted the public to have the right to an education. You should go take a few more history courses.

Now please continue to blow smoke etc.... It's what you are good at.

I'm sure you can post a link to the prospectus of the class you say meets my criteria for teachng Constitution? Or are you one who rarely reads below the headlines or course title?

And yes, Jefferson was huge on public education at the STATE level, not fedeal level. And he was 100% opposed to it being made mandatory that parents put their children into public schools as he felt that violated everything the Constitution was designed to protect. He was further opposed to the state choosing the text book or curriculum to be used in the classroom but thought that should be left to the teacher.

Jefferson, in other words, saw homeschooling or the rights of parents to determine the education of their children as an unalienable right.

Your last paragraph still cracks me up though. I am trying to find where I said Jefferson didn't think it was a right?
I think I just mentioned how he wanted public education. I will never understand why some try to word their answers like I have a certain point of view. Usually they are wrong. QW does it quite a bit, I see you are a fan of this trick too.
It's kind of like when you call Obama or a liberal a communist.

Perhaps you can point out where I said that you said anything at all. I am perplexed by those who read stuff into what others say and conclude that it's all about them though. I thought we were having a discussion on a principle or topic. And I thought it appropriate to refer or tie it to the thread topic in the process. My mistake.

Carry on.

 

[Luissa]

I'm sure you can post a link to the prospectus of the class you say meets my criteria for teachng Constitution? Or are you one who rarely reads below the headlines or course title?

And yes, Jefferson was huge on public education at the STATE level, not fedeal level. And he was 100% opposed to it being made mandatory that parents put their children into public schools as he felt that violated everything the Constitution was designed to protect. He was further opposed to the state choosing the text book or curriculum to be used in the classroom but thought that should be left to the teacher.

Jefferson, in other words, saw homeschooling or the rights of parents to determine the education of their children as an unalienable right.

Your last paragraph still cracks me up though. I am trying to find where I said Jefferson didn't think it was a right?
I think I just mentioned how he wanted public education. I will never understand why some try to word their answers like I have a certain point of view. Usually they are wrong. QW does it quite a bit, I see you are a fan of this trick too.
It's kind of like when you call Obama or a liberal a communist.

Perhaps you can point out where I said that you said anything at all. I am perplexed by those who read stuff into what others say and conclude that it's all about them though. I thought we were having a discussion on a principle or topic. And I thought it appropriate to refer or tie it to the thread topic in the process. My mistake.

Carry on.

It's the way smart gals like you word it. It come across as me having the opposite view point.

 

[Foxfyre]

You were "blessed" with A course? As in one course?

One course focused specifically on the Constitution as a stand alone document and including the history and basis for it, yes. With a competent professor, which I had, and good materials, which we had, three semester hours was sufficient to get a handle on it.

You took ONE COURSE and you are not only an expert on the Constitution, but are qualified to analyze, judge, and dismiss Harvard Law and every other law school in the country based on your unique insight of a course description? Could you be any more ridiculous? I guess I must be a super-duper expert since I've taken several courses on the US Constitution in my time. Funny how neither one of us is an attorney, judge, professor, or makes a living as a Constitutional scholar, huh? Us being super experts and all, right? Get a fucking grip already.

I specifically stated I am not an expert and never claimed to be. Nor have I analyzed, judged, or dismissed anybody. I have reported what I have seen and heard with my own eyes and have invited anybody to prove me wrong. So far nobody has.

I do not believe for a minute that you have had a course in the origins, basis for, and intended content of the Constitution or I think you wouldn't get it wrong as often as you do. My opinion again, and again I do not claim to be an expert.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your last paragraph still cracks me up though. I am trying to find where I said Jefferson didn't think it was a right?
I think I just mentioned how he wanted public education. I will never understand why some try to word their answers like I have a certain point of view. Usually they are wrong. QW does it quite a bit, I see you are a fan of this trick too.
It's kind of like when you call Obama or a liberal a communist.

Perhaps you can point out where I said that you said anything at all. I am perplexed by those who read stuff into what others say and conclude that it's all about them though. I thought we were having a discussion on a principle or topic. And I thought it appropriate to refer or tie it to the thread topic in the process. My mistake.

Carry on.

It's the way smart gals like you word it. It come across as me having the opposite view point.

Well I can't help how it comes across to you. My opinion, however faulty it might be, is that the best discussions involve opposite view points. There really isn't all that much to put in a discussion when everybody sees it the same way. But that's just me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Foxfyre may not be the best at research--never claimed to be--but she can read a prospectus, she can hear what those who have been there say about it, and can pay attention to those who know what they are talking about. And she knows that the title of a college course and/or a piece of legislation or program or whatever can bear little resemblance to what is included in it. And she knows that teaching case law, Supreme Court decisions, and legal application is not the same thing as teaching Constitution.

(Good Lord, I'm sounding worse than Dante referring to myself in third person.)

Based on lawyer friends I have, what I have read, and what others have said, I will stand by my opinion that it is a rare law school, if any, that teaches Constitution any more. They teach case law with references to the Constitution. Not the same thing. You will need to look long and hard to find college courses these days that even mention the Founders and/or the founding principles that formed the basis for the Constitution.

It took me about 30 seconds to find such a course at Harvard Law School.
I am sorry it was so hard for you. I wonder now if it really was that easy for you to understand the course you have claimed to take.


As for paying for education, Thomas Jefferson is just one founding father who believed in funding public education, and setting up a system in the new country he had helped formed.
Yes someone has the right to be home schooled, but if you don't think the founding fathers wanted the public to have the right to an education. You should go take a few more history courses.

Now please continue to blow smoke etc.... It's what you are good at.

I'm sure you can post a link to the prospectus of the class you say meets my criteria for teachng Constitution? Or are you one who rarely reads below the headlines or course title?

And yes, Jefferson was huge on public education at the STATE level, not fedeal level. And he was 100% opposed to it being made mandatory that parents put their children into public schools as he felt that violated everything the Constitution was designed to protect. He was further opposed to the state choosing the text book or curriculum to be used in the classroom but thought that should be left to the teacher.

Jefferson, in other words, saw homeschooling or the rights of parents to determine the education of their children as an unalienable right.

So, according to you no law schools teach the Constitution, whatever that is supposed to means.

That would mean that none of the many conservative law schools in this country teach the Constiution either.

So apparently in your world, not teaching the constitution is supported by educators all across the political spectrum.