Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[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.

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.

I don't know actually. I've asked for somebody, anybody, to find something that would prove me wrong about that. Are there conservative law schools? Where would those be?

But after looking at a few course offerings here and there around the country, talking with attorney friends, and reading up on it, I am of the opinion that law schools are probably not teaching Constitution as a stand alone document--they aren't teaching the concepts and theories that went into it or what the Founders intended that to be. They don't care about any of that. They rather focus on case law and judicial rulings that may or may not demonstrate that original intent.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Again, I have taken several courses whereas you only claim one. By your logic, I must be a super-duper expert far superior to yourself, right? I'm sorry your education was cut short, but your primitive, ignorant, uninformed 'beliefs' are of no value to a super-duper expert like me.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your opinion is noted Unkotare but thank you for contributing.

 

[Agit8r]

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

I call bullshit.

 

[Unkotare]

Your opinion is noted Unkotare but thank you for contributing.

You'll need to take more than ONE COURSE before your opinion is worth noting, but thanks for making an ass of yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I don't know actually. I've asked for somebody, anybody, to find something that would prove me wrong about that. Are there conservative law schools? Where would those be?

But after looking at a few course offerings here and there around the country, talking with attorney friends, and reading up on it, I am of the opinion that law schools are probably not teaching Constitution as a stand alone document--they aren't teaching the concepts and theories that went into it or what the Founders intended that to be. They don't care about any of that. They rather focus on case law and judicial rulings that may or may not demonstrate that original intent.

You're just whining because normal America doesn't teach the crackpot rightwing bastardized theory of what the Constitution is supposed to be and what it's supposed to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

I call bullshit.

You can call whatever you want. But it did learn a thing or two in that course way back when. And I'm pretty sure I'm right about Jefferson and his view of education.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

I don't know actually. I've asked for somebody, anybody, to find something that would prove me wrong about that. Are there conservative law schools? Where would those be?

But after looking at a few course offerings here and there around the country, talking with attorney friends, and reading up on it, I am of the opinion that law schools are probably not teaching Constitution as a stand alone document--they aren't teaching the concepts and theories that went into it or what the Founders intended that to be. They don't care about any of that. They rather focus on case law and judicial rulings that may or may not demonstrate that original intent.

You're just whining because normal America doesn't teach the crackpot rightwing bastardized theory of what the Constitution is supposed to be and what it's supposed to do.

Ah good. So you actually have found something to rebut my opinions on this. Great. Let's see it.

 

[Gadawg73]

No one has a right to an education in any form.

 

[Agit8r]

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

I call bullshit.

You can call whatever you want. But it did learn a thing or two in that course way back when. And I'm pretty sure I'm right about Jefferson and his view of education.

Well, let's see the context of the quote (from a note to his proposed Elementary School Act [1817]) that this argument always cites:

"Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? --to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? --public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely. Nor is it necessary in the present case. It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father. What is proposed here is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer,* and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered."

*the act states: "It is declared and enacted, that no person unborn or under the age of twelve years at the passing of this act, and who is compos mentis, shall, after the age of fifteen years, be a citizen of this commonwealth until he or she can read readily in some tongue, native or acquired."

I'd say that is closer to 50% than 100%. And I see nothing there that suggests that parental prerogative is an absolute inalienable right--in fact, rather the contrary.

 

[Foxfyre]

I call bullshit.

You can call whatever you want. But it did learn a thing or two in that course way back when. And I'm pretty sure I'm right about Jefferson and his view of education.

Well, let's see the context of the quote (from a note to his proposed Elementary School Act [1817]) that this argument always cites:

"Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? --to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? --public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely. Nor is it necessary in the present case. It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father. What is proposed here is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer,* and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered."

*the act states: "It is declared and enacted, that no person unborn or under the age of twelve years at the passing of this act, and who is compos mentis, shall, after the age of fifteen years, be a citizen of this commonwealth until he or she can read readily in some tongue, native or acquired."

I'd say that is closer to 50% than 100%. And I see nothing there that suggests that parental prerogative is an absolute inalienable right--in fact, rather the contrary.

We have to be really careful here. Take Jefferson for instance:

1. Jefferson would say the federal government has no jurisdiction in the education of the people.

2. Jefferson supported public schools at the state and local level but he was too much of a libertarian (small "L") to think that they should be able to force a parent to use the public school system though he would deem the parent to be wrong not to utilize that resource.

He would have said the states could make education mandatory whether or not that would have been a good thing to do.

He would also have said that the states could not prevent a parent from also homeschooling their child in addition to the mandatory schooling. It is that right of the parents that nobody may infringe.

 

[Agit8r]

You can call whatever you want. But it did learn a thing or two in that course way back when. And I'm pretty sure I'm right about Jefferson and his view of education.

Well, let's see the context of the quote (from a note to his proposed Elementary School Act [1817]) that this argument always cites:

"Is it a right or a duty in society to take care of their infant members in opposition to the will of the parent? How far does this right and duty extend? --to guard the life of the infant, his property, his instruction, his morals? The Roman father was supreme in all these: we draw a line, but where? --public sentiment does not seem to have traced it precisely. Nor is it necessary in the present case. It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father. What is proposed here is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated. Society has certainly a right to disavow him whom they offer,* and are permitted to qualify for the duties of a citizen. If we do not force instruction, let us at least strengthen the motives to receive it when offered."

*the act states: "It is declared and enacted, that no person unborn or under the age of twelve years at the passing of this act, and who is compos mentis, shall, after the age of fifteen years, be a citizen of this commonwealth until he or she can read readily in some tongue, native or acquired."

I'd say that is closer to 50% than 100%. And I see nothing there that suggests that parental prerogative is an absolute inalienable right--in fact, rather the contrary.

We have to be really careful here. Take Jefferson for instance:

1. Jefferson would say the federal government has no jurisdiction in the education of the people.

2. Jefferson supported public schools at the state and local level but he was too much of a libertarian (small "L") to think that they should be able to force a parent to use the public school system though he would deem the parent to be wrong not to utilize that resource.

He would have said the states could make education mandatory whether or not that would have been a good thing to do.

He would also have said that the states could not prevent a parent from also homeschooling their child in addition to the mandatory schooling. It is that right of the parents that nobody may infringe.

Again, there is a statement of an absolute about a figure who seldom acknowledged absolutes. One has to recall that having been trained as a lawyer, Jefferson was inclined to advance legal argument when it suited his purposes, but on other occasions--when it suited other purposes--he was inclined to walk the argument back somewhat. Such is the case with federal funding. In his 6th State of the Union Address, Jefferson asked for an Amendment that would allow federal funding for education and other internal improvements:

"...there will still ere long be an accumulation of moneys in the Treasury beyond the installments of public debt which we are permitted by contract to pay. They can not then, without a modification assented to by the public creditors, be applied to the extinguishment of this debt and the complete liberation of our revenues, the most desirable of all objects. Nor, if our peace continues, will they be wanting for any other existing purpose. The question therefore now comes forward, To what other objects shall these surpluses be appropriated, and the whole surplus of impost, after the entire discharge of the public debt, and during those intervals when the purposes of war shall not call for them? Shall we suppress the impost and give that advantage to foreign over domestic manufactures? On a few articles of more general and necessary use the suppression in due season will doubtless be right, but the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them.
Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers. By these operations new channels of communications will be opened between the States, the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties. Education is here placed among the articles of public care, not that it would be proposed to take its ordinary branches out of the hands of private enterprise, which manages so much better all the concerns to which it is equal, but a public institution can alone supply those sciences which though rarely called for are yet necessary to complete the circle, all the parts of which contribute to the improvement of the country and some of them to its preservation."

In his 8th State of the Union Address, he again asks for one, but seems to imply that the congress may already possess the power without it (a position that both parties accepted during the Era of Good Feelings)

"The probable accumulation of the surpluses of revenue beyond what can be applied to the payment of the public debt whenever the freedom and safety of our commerce shall be restored merits the consideration of Congress. Shall it lie unproductive in the public vaults? Shall the revenue be reduced? Or shall it not rather be appropriated to the improvements of roads, canals, rivers, education, and other great foundations of prosperity and union under the powers which Congress may already possess or such amendment to the Constitution as may be approved by the States?"