Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[NYcarbineer]

You do know that it was struck down by a state judge, not the Supreme Court, don't you? In fact, it was struck down by a low level state judge.

That has nothing to do with it. Once again you avoid addressing the issue with irrelevant nonsense.

It was not struck down because it was unconstitutional, it was struck down because it was arbitrary and unfair, wasn't actually a law, and was a complete abuse of authority. I think that has a lot to do with it.

I did not say that. Please, out of courtesy, don't ask me to defend what I didn't say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Actually it isn't, it is case law, which is an outgrowth of constitutional law. There is a subtle, but nonetheless real, difference.

And irrelevant. Would you like to tell us how it is that abortion is a constitutional right although abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution?

It isn't a constitutional right.

If the right to an abortion, at least in some cases, and let's stick to those cases, cannot be constitutionally denied,

how can that not be a constitutional right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, it has been overwhelmingly shown that you do not understand constitutional law. Yet that hasn't prevented you from opining.

.

My opinion is that homeschooling is, or more precisely should be considered, a constitutional right.

Because? Because compulsory education laws can in most cases be complied with via homeschooling,

therefore to deny someone that viable means, of their choosing, of satisfying the requirements of a state law is discriminatory.

What's your problem with that?

It is my opinion that you have no idea what a constitutional right is.

I don't see much merit in your opinions because they are most often either obviously wrong, or they are unsupported by any evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What's funniest is that I'm the one in this thread willing to declare that homeschooling is a constitutional right,

and the ones who won't are calling ME the Nazi.

lolol

Don't you agree that 'fascist' is more appropriate?

Didn't you say earlier that government can take children from their parents to educate in the manner that they see fit?

No I didn't. This is the problem with these boards. People like you don't actually read what people say.

Compulsory education is a fact. I said that parents have to comply with compulsory education laws, or face the consequences, but,

if they can comply using homeschooling they ought to be allowed to do so. In fact, I believe the constitution does, or should protect that option as a right.

This wasn't your post?

So the people who the other day were insisting that owning and driving a car was not a fundamental right are now insisting that homeschooling is??

lol, funny stuff.

Parents have the right to decide what's best for their children.

What do you care if someone else's kid is home schooled?

No actually they don't.

Or this?

No actually they don't.

Actually they do. Government has no right to dictate they know better than a parent when it comes to education.

Interesting this position to take "choice" out of the hands of parents, when it comes to deciding what's best behind the QUALITY of their kids education. Yet, where are Obama's kids attending? How dare he put his kids best interests first.

The government has every right to do so if the People have delegated that authority to the government, which in the case of compulsory education,

they have.

I guess that is another thing you got wrong, you can't even remember what you said.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That has nothing to do with it. Once again you avoid addressing the issue with irrelevant nonsense.

It was not struck down because it was unconstitutional, it was struck down because it was arbitrary and unfair, wasn't actually a law, and was a complete abuse of authority. I think that has a lot to do with it.

I did not say that. Please, out of courtesy, don't ask me to defend what I didn't say.

I am not asking you to defend anything, I am pointing out that your question is absurd. The law was just wrong, even without a constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And irrelevant. Would you like to tell us how it is that abortion is a constitutional right although abortion is never mentioned in the Constitution?

It isn't a constitutional right.

If the right to an abortion, at least in some cases, and let's stick to those cases, cannot be constitutionally denied,

how can that not be a constitutional right?

Because it isn't. The same logic applies to why it is not a constitutional right to sing in the shower.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gee, it has been overwhelmingly shown that you do not understand constitutional law. Yet that hasn't prevented you from opining.

.

Show me ONE thing I got wrong.

Just one? How about when you argued that the constitution protects the rights of consenting adults to have sex.

I proved it. With the irrefutable evidence. You simply used a fallacious argument to try to prove me wrong, and you failed.

You tried to claim that since not every single instance of consensual adult sex is legal, then it can't be a right.

That's like saying that since every case of speech is not protected speech, then there's no such thing as constitutionally protected speech.

If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that no rights are unlimited. Speech, religion, guns, you name it. They all have limits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

My opinion is that homeschooling is, or more precisely should be considered, a constitutional right.

Because? Because compulsory education laws can in most cases be complied with via homeschooling,

therefore to deny someone that viable means, of their choosing, of satisfying the requirements of a state law is discriminatory.

What's your problem with that?

It is my opinion that you have no idea what a constitutional right is.

I don't see much merit in your opinions because they are most often either obviously wrong, or they are unsupported by any evidence.

Just because you define lack of evidence as anything that contradicts your opinion does not mean there is no evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Show me ONE thing I got wrong.

Just one? How about when you argued that the constitution protects the rights of consenting adults to have sex.

I proved it. With the irrefutable evidence. You simply used a fallacious argument to try to prove me wrong, and you failed.

You tried to claim that since not every single instance of consensual adult sex is legal, then it can't be a right.

That's like saying that since every case of speech is not protected speech, then there's no such thing as constitutionally protected speech.

If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that no rights are unlimited. Speech, religion, guns, you name it. They all have limits.

Prostitution is illegal.

That is the only irrefutable evidence that has been presented by anyone. Until you can actually prove me wrong about that, you haven't proven anything.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no trouble understanding the posters around here who are in fact coherent, so I'm not ashamed to admit it when I can't understand the ones who aren't.

You have to actually read the documents the Founders left us that leave little question as to their convictions and intent. In the clause above, Hamilton was reaffirming again that our rights did not flow from a King or other government authority. We the American people created the government. It is not an agreement with a government authority. We tell the government what it can and cannot do. The Federalists and anti-Federalists were of one accord on that--they difered only on how strong the central government should be.

The interpretation:

(Under our Constitution) the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations. It was his argument against the necessity of a Bill of Rights as the Constitution itself, by being limited in its powers, did not interfer with the God given rights the people already had. Hamilton lost the argument, of course, as the Bill of Rights favored by the anti-Federalists would eventually be ratified and added to the Constitution.

But regardless, our American Constitution gave us a government different from any other in the history of the human race. It recognized that our rights did not flow from the King (government authority). He cited the Preamble to the Constitution in the argument that we created the government. We did not need a contract between us and our king. Hamilton continued: "[Under our Constitution,] the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations."

Citing the guy who lost the argument is itself a weak argument lol.

btw, what does any of that have to do with proving me wrong?

You asked for an explanation of the phrase. I gave you one. On the house. You don't even have to send the promised money.

Edit: On second thought I think I'll hold you to it. Just send it as a donation to USMB in my screen name.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It isn't a constitutional right.

If the right to an abortion, at least in some cases, and let's stick to those cases, cannot be constitutionally denied,

how can that not be a constitutional right?

Because it isn't. The same logic applies to why it is not a constitutional right to sing in the shower.

You didn't address anything I said. Therefore what said stands unrefuted.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have to actually read the documents the Founders left us that leave little question as to their convictions and intent. In the clause above, Hamilton was reaffirming again that our rights did not flow from a King or other government authority. We the American people created the government. It is not an agreement with a government authority. We tell the government what it can and cannot do. The Federalists and anti-Federalists were of one accord on that--they difered only on how strong the central government should be.

The interpretation:

(Under our Constitution) the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations. It was his argument against the necessity of a Bill of Rights as the Constitution itself, by being limited in its powers, did not interfer with the God given rights the people already had. Hamilton lost the argument, of course, as the Bill of Rights favored by the anti-Federalists would eventually be ratified and added to the Constitution.

But regardless, our American Constitution gave us a government different from any other in the history of the human race. It recognized that our rights did not flow from the King (government authority). He cited the Preamble to the Constitution in the argument that we created the government. We did not need a contract between us and our king. Hamilton continued: "[Under our Constitution,] the people surrender nothing, and as they retain everything, they have no need of particular reservations."

Citing the guy who lost the argument is itself a weak argument lol.

btw, what does any of that have to do with proving me wrong?

You asked for an explanation of the phrase. I gave you one. On the house. You don't even have to send the promised money.

You didn't read what I asked for. Read it again.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just one? How about when you argued that the constitution protects the rights of consenting adults to have sex.

I proved it. With the irrefutable evidence. You simply used a fallacious argument to try to prove me wrong, and you failed.

You tried to claim that since not every single instance of consensual adult sex is legal, then it can't be a right.

That's like saying that since every case of speech is not protected speech, then there's no such thing as constitutionally protected speech.

If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that no rights are unlimited. Speech, religion, guns, you name it. They all have limits.

Prostitution is illegal.

That is the only irrefutable evidence that has been presented by anyone. Until you can actually prove me wrong about that, you haven't proven anything.

Felons buying guns is illegal. Does that mean there's no right to bear arms?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I proved it. With the irrefutable evidence. You simply used a fallacious argument to try to prove me wrong, and you failed.

You tried to claim that since not every single instance of consensual adult sex is legal, then it can't be a right.

That's like saying that since every case of speech is not protected speech, then there's no such thing as constitutionally protected speech.

If you knew anything about the constitution, you would know that no rights are unlimited. Speech, religion, guns, you name it. They all have limits.

Prostitution is illegal.

That is the only irrefutable evidence that has been presented by anyone. Until you can actually prove me wrong about that, you haven't proven anything.

Felons buying guns is illegal. Does that mean there's no right to bear arms?

Prostitution is illegal.

It is legal for felons to buy, own, and bear, guns.

You tell me.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Prostitution is illegal.

That is the only irrefutable evidence that has been presented by anyone. Until you can actually prove me wrong about that, you haven't proven anything.

Felons buying guns is illegal. Does that mean there's no right to bear arms?

Prostitution is illegal.

It is legal for felons to buy, own, and bear, guns.

You tell me.

It is illegal in NY. Why do you act like this?

 

[Foxfyre]

Citing the guy who lost the argument is itself a weak argument lol.

btw, what does any of that have to do with proving me wrong?

You asked for an explanation of the phrase. I gave you one. On the house. You don't even have to send the promised money.

You didn't read what I asked for. Read it again.

You wrote this:

Show me ONE thing I got wrong.

Let Founding Father Alexander Hamilton explain it to you:

Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations."

.

I will literally pay someone $20, via Paypal, to explain to me, to my satisfaction (and I'm a fair man) what the fuck the above jibberish means,

and more importantly, how it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that I got something wrong.

The Founders would have easily said that the people of any state or community could establish whatever norms they wished to create the kind of society they wished to have. For instance, if a marriage is not consummated it can be annulled, but also certain rules regarding annulment or divorce can apply. It can be illegal to commit adultery or to have sex with an underaged person or to commit bigamy, etc. etc. etc. And such laws do not have to be uniform from state to state. So there is no constitutional right to have sex per se but rather there is the right to order a society any way you want it to be.

More on this in my thread "A government of the people, by the people, for the people."

I did edit my previous post and requested that you send the $20 to USMB in my name.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Felons buying guns is illegal. Does that mean there's no right to bear arms?

Prostitution is illegal.

It is legal for felons to buy, own, and bear, guns.

You tell me.

It is illegal in NY. Why do you act like this?

Not if he has a pardon.

Why do you insist on being wrong?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is wrong with you exactly?

I am trying to figure out if you really believe the shit you spout. If you really believe rights come from laws then any country that pulls people off the streets and kills them is justified, and there would be no reason to object to that happening. Come to think of it, since rights come from laws, there would be no reason to be upset if a country forces a rape victim to marry her rapist, or simply killed rape victims.

If, on the other hand, you think there is something wrong with that, then you obviously agree with me that rights come from someplace else.

The protection of rights come from laws. But the only rights that are protected are those that the lawmakers have decided are rights.

Remember the potato vs. the idea of a potato? Until they are grown they do not exist, except in the mind.

And rights? Until they are established and protected by law,

rights only exist as ideas. In fact, until they are legally established, rights only exist as arguments;

you say there is no right to an abortion. I say there is. Two conflicting ideas. The conflict is decided by the law;

abortion, at least some abortion, becomes a right here and now in the USA.

Not so.

The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government, and applies to all incorporated amendments.

Anything else you'd like to do, do it.

Restrictions would be laws passed in your state.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am trying to figure out if you really believe the shit you spout. If you really believe rights come from laws then any country that pulls people off the streets and kills them is justified, and there would be no reason to object to that happening. Come to think of it, since rights come from laws, there would be no reason to be upset if a country forces a rape victim to marry her rapist, or simply killed rape victims.

If, on the other hand, you think there is something wrong with that, then you obviously agree with me that rights come from someplace else.

The protection of rights come from laws. But the only rights that are protected are those that the lawmakers have decided are rights.

Remember the potato vs. the idea of a potato? Until they are grown they do not exist, except in the mind.

And rights? Until they are established and protected by law,

rights only exist as ideas. In fact, until they are legally established, rights only exist as arguments;

you say there is no right to an abortion. I say there is. Two conflicting ideas. The conflict is decided by the law;

abortion, at least some abortion, becomes a right here and now in the USA.

Not so.

The Constitution limits the powers of the federal government, and applies to all incorporated amendments.

Anything else you'd like to do, do it.

Restrictions would be laws passed in your state.

The Constitution creates the power of the federal government and declares it supreme.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Prostitution is illegal.

It is legal for felons to buy, own, and bear, guns.

You tell me.

It is illegal in NY. Why do you act like this?

Not if he has a pardon.

Why do you insist on being wrong?

I know your trolling is to goad me into leaving you alone because I make a monkey of you so often. It won't work.