Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[Unkotare]

Many homeschoolers do so on religious grounds.

Covered under the first amendment.

Currently homeschooling is not banned. I'm talking about a what if. What if a State banned homeschooling.

What if some liberal sap decides that any soda over 16 ounces, or any gun magazine holing 8 bullets makes one a felon.....?

Oh..wait.....



Liberal: whatever you don't like.....ban.

True

And whatever they do like...force down everyone's throat at the point of a gun.

 

[Foxfyre]

With which you unknowingly support the position I just described.

If education is not part of the federal government's delegated powers, which many conservatives firmly believe,

then according to the 10th amendment individual states can BAN homeschooling. That means homeschooling is not a fundamental right,

at least not a constitutionally protected right.

Get it?

The law depends on the mindset of whatever judges are ruling on a challenge to home schooling. In my opinion, homeschooling IS a fundamental constitutionally protected unalienable right because the Founders intended that the government not have any jurisdiction over the hearts, minds, values, thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes of a free people.

Likewise they would have seen a government education system as also outside the jurisdiction of the federal government but permissable within the social contract agreed to in the individual states or local communities. Which is how formal education was done up until the federal government began meddling.

In short a state or local community could establish a social contract making public schooling mandatory. But it could not forbid parents from also home schooling their kids.

Should the federal government initiate laws making anything other than equal access regarding education mandatory, such laws would be unconstitutional as the Founders saw such laws.

You're just tampering with principles in order to make a case that fits your agenda.

All a state has to do is make education compulsory, which you say is permissible, but it could then also set educational standards, rules, regulations, etc., - which would also be permissible, I assume,

such as one requiring teacher certification,

which would effectively ban most homeschooling well within the scope of your 'social contract' rules.

To assert one's right to homeschool in a state where compulsory education included a mandate that such education be administered by certified teacher would not hold up unless one were himself or herself a certified teacher.

You don't read well do you? Perhaps you might read my post a bit more carefully? Or can I help you with that?

Please cite any law or any principle that denies me the right to homeschool my child in addition to whatever compulsory education is mandated by the state.

And then given the excellent track record of homeschooling to provide an adequate or even superior education to homeschooled kids, please provide your theory of why the people should ever agree to the state requiring compulsory public education. Or requiring homeschooled kids to be taught only by certified teachers?

Can you honestly say that procedure and rules and regulations should be more important than the education children are receiving? If the child demonstrates proficiency in subjects equal to or exceeding those achieved in the public school system, why should it matter who is actually teaching the child?

And do you know what unalienable rights are?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Your hero Barry Goldwater said this about rights:

"a civil right is a right that is asserted and is therefore protected by some valid law...unless a right is incorporated in the law, it is not a civil right and is not enforceable by the instruments of the civil law.

There may some rights -"natural," "human", or otherwise- that should also be civil rights. But if we desire to give such rights the protection of the law, our recourse is to a legislature or to the amendment procedures of the Constitution."

So under that constitutionalist conservative standard - is homeschooling a civil right, or is it something that isn't, but perhaps should be a civil right??

I understand that you would like to, but I'm not interested in changing the subject.


Rights.


There are rights...and there are benefits.

They are very different.


You can make up any terms you like, civil rights, collective rights, Sesame Street rights....
...I have provided the definition twice.


You have no 'right' to a third time.

So you're right and Goldwater is full of shit?? lol, et tu brute.

Where do you find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

Or maybe I could ask the question this way (since you won't answer it no matter how I ask it)

Where would an originalist like your other hero Robert Bork find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

See if you can guess which amendment this is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Please cite any law or any principle that denies me the right to homeschool my child in addition to whatever compulsory education is mandated by the state.

Nobody here is talking about that. I'll take your deflection as a concession that my argument is irrefutable.

 

[Foxfyre]

[
Please cite any law or any principle that denies me the right to homeschool my child in addition to whatever compulsory education is mandated by the state.

Nobody here is talking about that. I'll take your deflection as a concession that my argument is irrefutable.

Nope. Because you stated and I quote:
"which would effectively ban most homeschooling well within the scope of your 'social contract' rules."

You are wrong. Whatever the state mandates in the realm of education, within our Constitution, it cannot take away my right to also homeschool my child. To do so violates the very essence and spirit embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Will you at least concede that point?

And again, while it might be in the public interest to specify what children must know, why should the people allow the state to mandate HOW our children will be educated?

Again, do you know what unalienable rights are?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Currently homeschooling is not banned. I'm talking about a what if. What if a State banned homeschooling.

What if some liberal sap decides that any soda over 16 ounces, or any gun magazine holing 8 bullets makes one a felon.....?

Oh..wait.....



Liberal: whatever you don't like.....ban.

True

And whatever they do like...force down everyone's throat at the point of a gun.

An understanding of personal liberty was lost long ago when the mental car-wash known as public education became mandatory.

Most are too weak, both in character and in intellect, to challenge the indoctrination.

You can see that in our friend Sloth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I understand that you would like to, but I'm not interested in changing the subject.


Rights.


There are rights...and there are benefits.

They are very different.


You can make up any terms you like, civil rights, collective rights, Sesame Street rights....
...I have provided the definition twice.


You have no 'right' to a third time.

So you're right and Goldwater is full of shit?? lol, et tu brute.

Where do you find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

Or maybe I could ask the question this way (since you won't answer it no matter how I ask it)

Where would an originalist like your other hero Robert Bork find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

See if you can guess which amendment this is.

Ah yes, the liberal application of the 9th amendment. I didn't ask you where I might find it; I asked you where Robert Bork might find it.

He dismissed the Ninth Amendment as an 'inkblot', you may recall.

 

[clevergirl]

So you're right and Goldwater is full of shit?? lol, et tu brute.

Where do you find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

Or maybe I could ask the question this way (since you won't answer it no matter how I ask it)

Where would an originalist like your other hero Robert Bork find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

See if you can guess which amendment this is.

Ah yes, the liberal application of the 9th amendment. I didn't ask you where I might find it; I asked you where Robert Bork might find it.

He dismissed the Ninth Amendment as an 'inkblot', you may recall.

Curriculum Matters | American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

 

[Contumacious]

Your hero Barry Goldwater said this about rights:

"a civil right is a right that is asserted and is therefore protected by some valid law...unless a right is incorporated in the law, it is not a civil right and is not enforceable by the instruments of the civil law.

There may some rights -"natural," "human", or otherwise- that should also be civil rights. But if we desire to give such rights the protection of the law, our recourse is to a legislature or to the amendment procedures of the Constitution."

So under that constitutionalist conservative standard - is homeschooling a civil right, or is it something that isn't, but perhaps should be a civil right??

I understand that you would like to, but I'm not interested in changing the subject.


Rights.


There are rights...and there are benefits.

They are very different.


You can make up any terms you like, civil rights, collective rights, Sesame Street rights....
...I have provided the definition twice.


You have no 'right' to a third time.

So you're right and Goldwater is full of shit?? lol, et tu brute.

Where do you find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

Or maybe I could ask the question this way (since you won't answer it no matter how I ask it)

Where would an originalist like your other hero Robert Bork find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

I get your drift.

You know , I believe you would be happier in Cuba, Venezuela or any other Country where the state has an educational monopoly.

So really, leave our country fast - you won't hurt our feelings.

Esther La Vista.

.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you're right and Goldwater is full of shit?? lol, et tu brute.

Where do you find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

Or maybe I could ask the question this way (since you won't answer it no matter how I ask it)

Where would an originalist like your other hero Robert Bork find the right to homeschool in the Constitution?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

See if you can guess which amendment this is.

Ah yes, the liberal application of the 9th amendment. I didn't ask you where I might find it; I asked you where Robert Bork might find it.

He dismissed the Ninth Amendment as an 'inkblot', you may recall.

1. There is no doubt in the world that Alexander Pope had you in mind when he wrote:
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."


2. Judge Bork's comment vis-a-vis the 9th amendment was in reference to the idea that the federal government could use it against the states as he could see judges choosing to interpret the amendment as they saw fit.

a. This is the untenable state judicial review has entered as a result of fools giving validity to the idea of a 'living Constitution.'


3. Judge Bork makes the point that Originalists can easily apply timeless constitutional commands to new technologies, such as wiretapping and television, and to changed circumstances, as suits for libel and slander. All the judge needs is knowledge of the core value that the Framers intended to protect. And, while we may not decide every case in the way the Framers would have, “entire ranges of problems will be placed off limits to judges, thus preserving democracy in those areas where the framers intended democratic government.”
Bork states that the role of a judge is to solve this dilemma by setting the proper ground rules on when the majority and when the minority should rule, and that following the intentions of the framers and treating the Constitution like law will satisfy the dilemma, and constrain judges.
From “Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate,” edited by Professor Steven G. Calabresi.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps I should have said 'civil right'. A civil right is a right that is protected by law.

If the federal government has no power constitutionally in education, then homeschooling is not a fundamental civil right,

because a state can ban it without being susceptible to reversal on constitutional grounds.

So...
...is education a federal concern, constitutionally?

Actually....this is what you said:

"then homeschooling is NOT a fundamental right."


But your post indicates that you still don't understand what a 'right' is...


1. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.
a. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.
2. Rights belong to each human individually.
3. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.
4. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.
5. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.



6. To be clear, ‘benefits’ such as public education, shelter, or a job require resources from somewhere else, and therefore, cannot be given or protected without restricting another’s right to the property of his hands or mind.



7. It is a grave error to believe that rights evolve due to societal changes, and expand to include free education, shelter, a minimum wage, healthcare…even wireless Internet access.

a. Whereas the right to bear arms and free expression require nothing but governmental promise of protection, fake rights entail government coercive redirection of private resources.

b. Thus, material benefits do not meet the basic standards of a right.

8. Realize, expanding the concept of a right to cover desires or Liberal wishes represents theft, peculation, as the natural and timeless rights of people must be subordinated to the power of government.

9. One way of hiding the theft is to invent the cover of ‘collective rights.” it is the favored method of the Left, co-opt the language.
Based on Richard Lorenc, “Reinventing The Right,” p.33-34.



"...because a state can ban it..."

If we were a nation based on the Constitution, as we once were, a state or federal government cannot ban what is given via the 'law of the land.'


That was true before the Imperial President, King Franklin the First.

Your hero Barry Goldwater said this about rights:

"a civil right is a right that is asserted and is therefore protected by some valid law...unless a right is incorporated in the law, it is not a civil right and is not enforceable by the instruments of the civil law.

There may some rights -"natural," "human", or otherwise- that should also be civil rights. But if we desire to give such rights the protection of the law, our recourse is to a legislature or to the amendment procedures of the Constitution."

So under that constitutionalist conservative standard - is homeschooling a civil right, or is it something that isn't, but perhaps should be a civil right??

Why should it be a civil right? As I have repeatedly pointed out, and you have repeatedly ignored, every single time states have tired to force parents not to home school they lost the battle in court. Every single time.

Making it a civil right would just give the government a license to intrude into people's lives. It is strange how you want the government to be able to walk into bedrooms to make sure that people aren't doing stuff you don't like, yet call yourself a liberal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A question for you strict constructionist types, or whatever similar term you conservatives prefer:

A State bans homeschooling. Someone challenges the constitutionality of the ban. On what constitutional grounds, in accordance with your own strict adherence to the constitution,

would you think it could be overturned? Where in the Constitution would you find the right to homeschool?

Many homeschoolers do so on religious grounds.

Covered under the first amendment.

Currently homeschooling is not banned. I'm talking about a what if. What if a State banned homeschooling.

What if a state banned breathing?

Why should I get myself involved in paranoid fantasies just to answer your questions?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Another dodge.

I highlighted the part you didn't read.

Excuse me? Since I just pointed out that the bans don't even pass muster in state courts because, believe it or not, the state does not own the people, there is no need to come up with any other type of argument.

States banned integrated schools up until Brown vs. Board of Education. Conservatives argued that Brown was wrongly decided because the federal government had no right to dictate to the states on matters of education,

in short, education laws fell under the principle of states rights.

Were they (are they?) wrong? Who was right, constitutionally?

States banned integrated schools because the Supreme Court flat out declared that the 14th Amendment did not apply schools, and that they were exempt from all federal civil rights laws. That would mean that, by your definition of the constitution, they were right. I., on the other hand, believe that the 14th Amendment does apply to the states, and always did, which means that what they did was unconstitutional.

All that is left now is for you to admit that you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Show me in the Federal Constitution where it states by law that anyone has a right to an education period.

That's the conservative petard that I'm hoisting these people with.

It's widely argued by conservatives that the federal government has no business in education. That education falls within the scope of states' rights;

suddenly, however, when conservatives decide outcome trumps principle, they are clamoring to claim homeschooling as a fundamental Constitutional right.

The irony is, homeschooling might be a Constitutional right, but that would require the kind of liberal interpretation of what is or isn't in the Constitution that conservatives generally, otherwise detest.

No it is not, because we all understand the difference between a right and a civil right.

 

[Erand7899]

Would you like to know what the Supreme Court has said on the matter, or is that irrelevant to you?

Absolutely irrelevent as far as the subject of individual liberties is concerned. SCOTUS has gotten it wrong many times in the past, and we too often have had justices who didn't understand the Constitutional principles of freedom the Founders intended for this country.

The Founders intended the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and enforce just enough laws and regulation necessary to do that. Then they intended that the federal government would leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have. That was their definition of freedom.

Whether you are an American conservative or liberal all comes down to whether you believe government dictates how you will live your life to better advantage than you would choose for yourself or whether you are capable of making your own choices, spending your own money, and living your own life as you choose; i.e. whether you choose to be governed or you choose to be free.

To say the SCOTUS is irrelevant is to say the Constitution is irrelevant, because the Supreme Court is the constitutional method by which it is determined what the Constitution means,

at such times as there arises a legal dispute over the Constitution's meaning.

To claim that there is no way to determine the Constitution's meaning is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless.

Under your theory, we don't need a written constitution. We can just rely on legal precedence and the wisdom of nine lawyers, each of whom has political biases of their own. The Supreme Court has gotten it wrong many times, and the bad part is that they are always hesitant to correct their mistakes. After all, that would mean they were wrong.

Government has the right to ensure that children receive basic needs. Food, shelter, medical attention, and education are among those basic needs. It has the power to establish what these basic needs are, and it has the power to establish and enforce standards. But, it does not have the right to determine how parents see fit to meet these standards.

The public school system has failed far too many children, and it is way past time to either fix it, or replace it with a system that works.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Absolutely irrelevent as far as the subject of individual liberties is concerned. SCOTUS has gotten it wrong many times in the past, and we too often have had justices who didn't understand the Constitutional principles of freedom the Founders intended for this country.

The Founders intended the federal government to secure our unalienable rights and enforce just enough laws and regulation necessary to do that. Then they intended that the federal government would leave us strictly alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wished to have. That was their definition of freedom.

Whether you are an American conservative or liberal all comes down to whether you believe government dictates how you will live your life to better advantage than you would choose for yourself or whether you are capable of making your own choices, spending your own money, and living your own life as you choose; i.e. whether you choose to be governed or you choose to be free.

To say the SCOTUS is irrelevant is to say the Constitution is irrelevant, because the Supreme Court is the constitutional method by which it is determined what the Constitution means,

at such times as there arises a legal dispute over the Constitution's meaning.

To claim that there is no way to determine the Constitution's meaning is to effectively render the Constitution meaningless.

Under your theory, we don't need a written constitution. We can just rely on legal precedence and the wisdom of nine lawyers, each of whom has political biases of their own. The Supreme Court has gotten it wrong many times, and the bad part is that they are always hesitant to correct their mistakes. After all, that would mean they were wrong.

Government has the right to ensure that children receive basic needs. Food, shelter, medical attention, and education are among those basic needs. It has the power to establish what these basic needs are, and it has the power to establish and enforce standards. But, it does not have the right to determine how parents see fit to meet these standards.

The public school system has failed far too many children, and it is way past time to either fix it, or replace it with a system that works.

That is the view of the totalitarians.

They despise the Constitution, and the restrictions it attempts to place on their god, government.


Direct from Woodrow Wilson, the racist and progressive President:

"Justly revered as our great Constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws." … Woodrow Wilson [Woodrow Wilson
"The Modern Democratic State" (1885; first published in 1966)
The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Volume 5]

 

[PaulS1950]

The US supreme court is limited to the following powers by the constitution:

Article III.

Sect. 1. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one
supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time
to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and
inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall,
at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation which shall not
be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Sect. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases
affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls;-to all Cases
of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the
United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more
States, between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of
different States, between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, and between a State or the Citizens thereof,
and foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;
and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have
been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be
at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Sect. 3. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War
against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no
Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except
during the Life of the Person attained.

The rights of the people are unlimited and free from any governmental interference:

9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers of the states and to the people are what is left over:

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.

The states have all the powers not given by the constitution to the federal government unless they are restricted by the constitution. The constitution expressly forbids actions that restrict the rights of the people. The constitutionality of laws is in the powers of the states and the people so long as they do not conflict with the powers granted to the federal government or the rights of the people.

Study the constitution before you try to subvert it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Show me in the Federal Constitution where it states by law that anyone has a right to an education period.

That's the conservative petard that I'm hoisting these people with.

It's widely argued by conservatives that the federal government has no business in education. That education falls within the scope of states' rights;

suddenly, however, when conservatives decide outcome trumps principle, they are clamoring to claim homeschooling as a fundamental Constitutional right.

The irony is, homeschooling might be a Constitutional right, but that would require the kind of liberal interpretation of what is or isn't in the Constitution that conservatives generally, otherwise detest.

No it is not, because we all understand the difference between a right and a civil right.

Are you finally stating for the record that you do not believe homeschooling is a constitutional right?

Let's be clear here too. We are talking about homeschooling as an alternative method to satisfy state mandated compulsory education laws.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Many homeschoolers do so on religious grounds.

Covered under the first amendment.

Currently homeschooling is not banned. I'm talking about a what if. What if a State banned homeschooling.

What if some liberal sap decides that any soda over 16 ounces, or any gun magazine holing 8 bullets makes one a felon.....?

Oh..wait.....



Liberal: whatever you don't like.....ban.

Why are you dodging your own subject.

What if a state bans homeschooling by parents who do not have teaching certificates? What if the state's compulsory education laws require teacher certification in order for schools to fulfill that requirement?

Is that constitutional, in your own personal opinion?

 

[Foxfyre]

Currently homeschooling is not banned. I'm talking about a what if. What if a State banned homeschooling.

What if some liberal sap decides that any soda over 16 ounces, or any gun magazine holing 8 bullets makes one a felon.....?

Oh..wait.....



Liberal: whatever you don't like.....ban.

Why are you dodging your own subject.

What if a state bans homeschooling by parents who do not have teaching certificates? What if the state's compulsory education laws require teacher certification in order for schools to fulfill that requirement?

Is that constitutional, in your own personal opinion?

This was not directed to me, but the state CAN most likely mandate compulsory public school education for children or mandate that children must have state certified teachers in order for the state to recognize their education. This would, however, be in opposition to what the Founders intended for a free people. And the federal government would be in violation of the Constitution should it order such.

The state CANNOT, as the Constitution is currently written, forbid me from homeschooling my child in addition to whatever is mandated whether or not I have a teaching certificate or any formal education at all.

There is an unalienable right for us to educate ourselves however we choose to do that.