Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[NYcarbineer]

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

There has been a Supreme Court decision declaring singing in the shower a constitutional right; there has been for abortion, so no, in that sense, logic wouldn't apply.

On the other hand, singing in the shower, in and of itself, would probably qualify as an unenumerated right,

in the event it were banned and such ban was subsequently challenged. It would depend on why it was banned.

You had to get some serious help to even figure out what I meant, didn't you? Too bad you didn't listen to whoever explained it to you.

IOW you have nothing to refute the common knowledge that some abortions at this point in time are a constitutional right.

You shouldn't have denied it then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There has been a Supreme Court decision declaring singing in the shower a constitutional right; there has been for abortion, so no, in that sense, logic wouldn't apply.

On the other hand, singing in the shower, in and of itself, would probably qualify as an unenumerated right,

in the event it were banned and such ban was subsequently challenged. It would depend on why it was banned.

You had to get some serious help to even figure out what I meant, didn't you? Too bad you didn't listen to whoever explained it to you.

IOW you have nothing to refute the common knowledge that some abortions at this point in time are a constitutional right.

You shouldn't have denied it then.

They are a legal/civil/constitutional entitlement at this point in time. How many times do I have to explain to you the difference between rights and entitlements before you understand that I am not going to get it wrong?

 

[Contumacious]

School Truancy Laws Jail Parents and Levy Excessive Fines

Disguised as well-meaning attempts to resolve attendance issues in the schools, school truancy laws are nothing less than stealth maneuvers aimed at enriching school districts and court systems alike through excessive fines and jail sentences. Even worse, argues John Whitehead in this week's vodcast, America's youth are now finding themselves in a protracted battle brought about by those whom they are supposed to trust: teachers, police officers, and courts of law.

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You had to get some serious help to even figure out what I meant, didn't you? Too bad you didn't listen to whoever explained it to you.

IOW you have nothing to refute the common knowledge that some abortions at this point in time are a constitutional right.

You shouldn't have denied it then.

They are a legal/civil/constitutional entitlement at this point in time. How many times do I have to explain to you the difference between rights and entitlements before you understand that I am not going to get it wrong?

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.

 

[Agit8r]

I'm just waiting for one of the righties to quote the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

there's something in there about this, but you'll have have to acknowledge the new world order

 

[Foxfyre]

There are no "constitutional rights" there are only constitutionally PROTECTED rights.
The nineth amendment states:
" The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."

There is no place in the constitution that states "the rights provided by the constitution" because it does not provide those rights. The framers knew that all our rights were endowed by the fact that we are born human. They set the bill of rights up to ensure that the government would protect them.

Man, were they wrong!

No they weren't. They even knew in their heart that there would be unethical government leaders who would be tempted to use government powers to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

“Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.” -Vladimir Lenin

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." - John Adams

"There is far more danger in public than private monopoly, for when government goes into business it can always shift its losses to the taxpayer. Government never makes ends meet - and that is the
first requisite of business." - Thomas Edison

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -Patrick Henry

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters. . . . . but they mean to be masters." - Noah Webster (1758–1843)

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."- Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin

The government needs three things to thrive and grow:

1. Obedient citizens who will not upset the status quo.

2. Money, which requires citizens who believe the government deserves their money and will utilize it in better ways than they themselves will, or at the very least, citizens who are afraid not to hand their money over.

3. Power: citizens who will willingly subdue fellow citizens who refuse to submit; citizens who will fight wars; citizens who will turn on one another when ordered or asked to do so but will not turn on the government. Without force, the government is powerless. Unless people are willing to act unquestioningly on behalf of the government to enforce its edicts, the government has no power.

You do not need to believe that public schools were started in order to meet these needs of the government (though a careful study of school history will reveal considerable evidence for the theory), but you should be able to recognize that today's schools fulfill the needs. And it should alarm you.

Our founders worded the U.S. Constitution so that the federal government should have no role in education. It was not within the scope of their endeavor to dictate the same to states, but their efforts at the national level were surely a warning to citizens of the danger of handing over to a ruling body the teaching of its subjects.
Doesnt government have direct interest in educated populace

Do you know there are law schools now that never refer their students to the actual Constitution but rather refer them to case law regarding it? I am guessing we have people passing the laws we have to live under who have never read the Constitution.

We have kids graduating from HS and college, who have had absolutely no comprehensive instructive in the U.S. Constitution.

And if you had designs to increase the powers of government and reduce the powers of the people to resist the desires and aims of government, would you not start with the education the kids are receiving?

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are no "constitutional rights" there are only constitutionally PROTECTED rights.
The nineth amendment states:
" The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."

There is no place in the constitution that states "the rights provided by the constitution" because it does not provide those rights. The framers knew that all our rights were endowed by the fact that we are born human. They set the bill of rights up to ensure that the government would protect them.

Man, were they wrong!

No they weren't. They even knew in their heart that there would be unethical government leaders who would be tempted to use government powers to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

“Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.” -Vladimir Lenin

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." - John Adams

"There is far more danger in public than private monopoly, for when government goes into business it can always shift its losses to the taxpayer. Government never makes ends meet - and that is the
first requisite of business." - Thomas Edison

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -Patrick Henry

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters. . . . . but they mean to be masters." - Noah Webster (1758–1843)

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."- Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin

The government needs three things to thrive and grow:

1. Obedient citizens who will not upset the status quo.

2. Money, which requires citizens who believe the government deserves their money and will utilize it in better ways than they themselves will, or at the very least, citizens who are afraid not to hand their money over.

3. Power: citizens who will willingly subdue fellow citizens who refuse to submit; citizens who will fight wars; citizens who will turn on one another when ordered or asked to do so but will not turn on the government. Without force, the government is powerless. Unless people are willing to act unquestioningly on behalf of the government to enforce its edicts, the government has no power.

You do not need to believe that public schools were started in order to meet these needs of the government (though a careful study of school history will reveal considerable evidence for the theory), but you should be able to recognize that today's schools fulfill the needs. And it should alarm you.

Our founders worded the U.S. Constitution so that the federal government should have no role in education. It was not within the scope of their endeavor to dictate the same to states, but their efforts at the national level were surely a warning to citizens of the danger of handing over to a ruling body the teaching of its subjects.
Doesnt government have direct interest in educated populace

Do you know there are law schools now that never refer their students to the actual Constitution but rather refer them to case law regarding it? I am guessing we have people passing the laws we have to live under who have never read the Constitution.

We have kids graduating from HS and college, who have had absolutely no comprehensive instructive in the U.S. Constitution.

And if you had designs to increase the powers of government and reduce the powers of the people to resist the desires and aims of government, would you not start with the education the kids are receiving?

Could you list all those law schools?

 

[bendog]

Law students should never study what the supreme court says the consitution means. We all are free to decide what it means to us individually, and live free! (-:

 

[Foxfyre]

There are no "constitutional rights" there are only constitutionally PROTECTED rights.
The nineth amendment states:
" The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people."

There is no place in the constitution that states "the rights provided by the constitution" because it does not provide those rights. The framers knew that all our rights were endowed by the fact that we are born human. They set the bill of rights up to ensure that the government would protect them.

Man, were they wrong!

No they weren't. They even knew in their heart that there would be unethical government leaders who would be tempted to use government powers to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

“Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.” -Vladimir Lenin

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." - John Adams

"There is far more danger in public than private monopoly, for when government goes into business it can always shift its losses to the taxpayer. Government never makes ends meet - and that is the
first requisite of business." - Thomas Edison

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -Patrick Henry

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters. . . . . but they mean to be masters." - Noah Webster (1758–1843)

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."- Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin

The government needs three things to thrive and grow:

1. Obedient citizens who will not upset the status quo.

2. Money, which requires citizens who believe the government deserves their money and will utilize it in better ways than they themselves will, or at the very least, citizens who are afraid not to hand their money over.

3. Power: citizens who will willingly subdue fellow citizens who refuse to submit; citizens who will fight wars; citizens who will turn on one another when ordered or asked to do so but will not turn on the government. Without force, the government is powerless. Unless people are willing to act unquestioningly on behalf of the government to enforce its edicts, the government has no power.

You do not need to believe that public schools were started in order to meet these needs of the government (though a careful study of school history will reveal considerable evidence for the theory), but you should be able to recognize that today's schools fulfill the needs. And it should alarm you.

Our founders worded the U.S. Constitution so that the federal government should have no role in education. It was not within the scope of their endeavor to dictate the same to states, but their efforts at the national level were surely a warning to citizens of the danger of handing over to a ruling body the teaching of its subjects.
Doesnt government have direct interest in educated populace

Do you know there are law schools now that never refer their students to the actual Constitution but rather refer them to case law regarding it? I am guessing we have people passing the laws we have to live under who have never read the Constitution.

We have kids graduating from HS and college, who have had absolutely no comprehensive instructive in the U.S. Constitution.

And if you had designs to increase the powers of government and reduce the powers of the people to resist the desires and aims of government, would you not start with the education the kids are receiving?

Could you list all those law schools?

All what law schools? Those that don't teach Constitution but rathe teach theory, case law, and policy? I have neither the time nor inclination to do that much research.

But here is what Harvard Law lists as Constitutional Law in their curriculum outline:

Alumni Pursuits
Business Law
Civil Rights
Clinical Practice
Criminal Law
Environmental Law
Faculty Research
Human Rights
Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw
International Legal Studies
Public Service
Student Pursuits
Tax Law
Teaching
Terrorism and National Security
Recent Highlights

Nothing on the Founders or other history or original concepts or actual content of the Constitution as a whole itself and how the Founders interpreted each clause in the Constitution. And even though there is a federal mandate (2004) for public schools to teach Constitution, there is no requirement of what that is to include either. So almost anythng can be labeled 'constitution' to meet the requirement.

I have asked kids in my classes if they are being taught Constitution in school. I get mostly blank stares, shrugs, and/or 'not much'.

My opinion is based on lawyers I know and who I have talked with about this, based on comments by some of our elected officials, based on the extreme objections by the Democrats to the House Republicans insisting on reading the Constitution out loud at the beginning of this Congress, and based on anecdotal evidence such as this:

Education and the Constitution - Los Angeles Political Buzz | Examiner.com

 

[bendog]

No they weren't. They even knew in their heart that there would be unethical government leaders who would be tempted to use government powers to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

“Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.” -Vladimir Lenin

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." - John Adams

"There is far more danger in public than private monopoly, for when government goes into business it can always shift its losses to the taxpayer. Government never makes ends meet - and that is the
first requisite of business." - Thomas Edison

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -Patrick Henry

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters. . . . . but they mean to be masters." - Noah Webster (1758–1843)

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."- Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin



Do you know there are law schools now that never refer their students to the actual Constitution but rather refer them to case law regarding it? I am guessing we have people passing the laws we have to live under who have never read the Constitution.

We have kids graduating from HS and college, who have had absolutely no comprehensive instructive in the U.S. Constitution.

And if you had designs to increase the powers of government and reduce the powers of the people to resist the desires and aims of government, would you not start with the education the kids are receiving?

Could you list all those law schools?

All what law schools? Those that don't teach Constitution but rathe teach theory, case law, and policy? I have neither the time nor inclination to do that much research.

But here is what Harvard Law lists as Constitutional Law in their curriculum outline:

Alumni Pursuits
Business Law
Civil Rights
Clinical Practice
Criminal Law
Environmental Law
Faculty Research
Human Rights
Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw
International Legal Studies
Public Service
Student Pursuits
Tax Law
Teaching
Terrorism and National Security
Recent Highlights

Nothing on the Founders or other history or original concepts or actual content of the Constitution as a whole itself and how the Founders interpreted each clause in the Constitution. And even though there is a federal mandate (2004) for public schools to teach Constitution, there is no requirement of what that is to include either. So almost anythng can be labeled 'constitution' to meet the requirement.

I have asked kids in my classes if they are being taught Constitution in school. I get mostly blank stares, shrugs, and/or 'not much'.

My opinion is based on lawyers I know and who I have talked with about this, based on comments by some of our elected officials, based on the extreme objections by the Democrats to the House Republicans insisting on reading the Constitution out loud at the beginning of this Congress, and based on anecdotal evidence such as this:

Education and the Constitution - Los Angeles Political Buzz | Examiner.com

You assume the beliefs of the Founders were uniform, or even recorded in some comprehensive form, and neither is the case. Moreover, while I was no happy camper in law school, you do not understand that the function of schools is NOT to teach people what facts are, but rather how to deduce facts via independent thinking. That is, students and lawyers must determine the meaning of various const clauses by self questioning their own beliefs in light of available information.

 

[PaulS1950]

The beliefs of the founders were far from uniform but the came to a consensus on many issues. One of those issues was the right of the individual and any collection of individuals to defend themselve against attack whether it be from robbers, foreign governments or their own government.

Many of the framers saw no reason to include the bill of rights in a document that was originated to limit the powers of the federal government but the end consensus was that they should be listed to ensure their protection from both state and federal governments.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No they weren't. They even knew in their heart that there would be unethical government leaders who would be tempted to use government powers to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes.

“Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.” -Vladimir Lenin

"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt." - John Adams

"There is far more danger in public than private monopoly, for when government goes into business it can always shift its losses to the taxpayer. Government never makes ends meet - and that is the
first requisite of business." - Thomas Edison

"The Constitution is NOT an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." -Patrick Henry

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters. . . . . but they mean to be masters." - Noah Webster (1758–1843)

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."- Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859)

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin



Do you know there are law schools now that never refer their students to the actual Constitution but rather refer them to case law regarding it? I am guessing we have people passing the laws we have to live under who have never read the Constitution.

We have kids graduating from HS and college, who have had absolutely no comprehensive instructive in the U.S. Constitution.

And if you had designs to increase the powers of government and reduce the powers of the people to resist the desires and aims of government, would you not start with the education the kids are receiving?

Could you list all those law schools?

All what law schools? Those that don't teach Constitution but rathe teach theory, case law, and policy? I have neither the time nor inclination to do that much research.

]

Why would you have to do research? You claimed it as fact. I want you to name a law school that NEVER REFERS ITS STUDENTS TO THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.

 

[Foxfyre]

Could you list all those law schools?

All what law schools? Those that don't teach Constitution but rathe teach theory, case law, and policy? I have neither the time nor inclination to do that much research.

]

Why would you have to do research? You claimed it as fact. I want you to name a law school that NEVER REFERS ITS STUDENTS TO THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.

No you asked for me to name all the law schools to which my statement would apply. I actually was educated at a time people were taught to read and comprehend.

But for one, I gave you Harvard Law School that does not appear to have the actual Constitution in any of its posted curriculum. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure some Harvard law student will be able to set me straight.

 

[Foxfyre]

The beliefs of the founders were far from uniform but the came to a consensus on many issues. One of those issues was the right of the individual and any collection of individuals to defend themselve against attack whether it be from robbers, foreign governments or their own government.

Many of the framers saw no reason to include the bill of rights in a document that was originated to limit the powers of the federal government but the end consensus was that they should be listed to ensure their protection from both state and federal governments.

You are exactly right that they all did not agree on every point. They were of one mind, however, on the concept of God given unalienable rights and that a free people tells the government what it can and cannot do rather than being governed by a government. And they were of one mind that none ever wanted to live again under authority of a monarch or pope or any other form of government that assigns the rights the people will be allowed and can just as easily take them away.

They were of one mind that the federal government would never be able to infringe on the people's rights to worship as they pleased, to have and write and speak whatever beliefs, thoughts, convictions, or opinions that they had and could never be subject to censure or discipline or punishment or reward for such expressions. They were of one mind that the people should always have the unalienable right of self defense against any threat or enemy, including their own government. They were of one mind that the federal government was strictly limited to what the Constitution specifically allowed and absolutely nothing more.

For that reason they would have stated there is no constitutional authority for the federal government to involve itself in education of the people or mandating what education much include. The federal government could issue proclamations and encourage but could not enforce such things.

Those core principles formed a working nucleous for seven long years of meetings, talks, debates, speeches, declarations, journals, jotted crib notes, letters exchanged, negotiation and compromise until they final hammered out a structure for the new government and what would be required of it that all could agree to. It was signed on September 17, 1787, and subsequently ratified by eleven states to become official on June 21, 1788. Ultimately all the states in existence at that time ratified it.

The Bill of Rights were finally ratified and became law December 15, 1791.

The Constitution is a testament to freedom loving people of differing opinions and competing interests being able to forge a magnificent document and found a magnificent nation.

And they, to a man, would have defended to death a parents right to educate a child as the parent saw fit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All what law schools? Those that don't teach Constitution but rathe teach theory, case law, and policy? I have neither the time nor inclination to do that much research.

]

Why would you have to do research? You claimed it as fact. I want you to name a law school that NEVER REFERS ITS STUDENTS TO THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.

No you asked for me to name all the law schools to which my statement would apply. I actually was educated at a time people were taught to read and comprehend.

But for one, I gave you Harvard Law School that does not appear to have the actual Constitution in any of its posted curriculum. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure some Harvard law student will be able to set me straight.

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

All what law schools? Those that don't teach Constitution but rathe teach theory, case law, and policy? I have neither the time nor inclination to do that much research.

]

Why would you have to do research? You claimed it as fact. I want you to name a law school that NEVER REFERS ITS STUDENTS TO THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.

No you asked for me to name all the law schools to which my statement would apply. I actually was educated at a time people were taught to read and comprehend.

But for one, I gave you Harvard Law School that does not appear to have the actual Constitution in any of its posted curriculum. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure some Harvard law student will be able to set me straight.

You really are an idiot's idiot around here. You know you really have to be some sort of super idiot to be stupid even in comparison to the typical conservative idiot on this forum.

https://coursecatalog.harvard.edu/i...aram_requestId=492521#a_icb_pagecontent695860

 

[Foxfyre]

Why would you have to do research? You claimed it as fact. I want you to name a law school that NEVER REFERS ITS STUDENTS TO THE ACTUAL CONSTITUTION.

No you asked for me to name all the law schools to which my statement would apply. I actually was educated at a time people were taught to read and comprehend.

But for one, I gave you Harvard Law School that does not appear to have the actual Constitution in any of its posted curriculum. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure some Harvard law student will be able to set me straight.

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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

IOW you have nothing to refute the common knowledge that some abortions at this point in time are a constitutional right.

You shouldn't have denied it then.

They are a legal/civil/constitutional entitlement at this point in time. How many times do I have to explain to you the difference between rights and entitlements before you understand that I am not going to get it wrong?

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They are a legal/civil/constitutional entitlement at this point in time. How many times do I have to explain to you the difference between rights and entitlements before you understand that I am not going to get it wrong?

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?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No you asked for me to name all the law schools to which my statement would apply. I actually was educated at a time people were taught to read and comprehend.

But for one, I gave you Harvard Law School that does not appear to have the actual Constitution in any of its posted curriculum. If I'm wrong about that, I'm sure some Harvard law student will be able to set me straight.

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.