Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

Why do people who have no idea how the government works set themselves up as experts on how the government works? Tell me something, if the Supreme Court is the only way to determine what the Constitution means why is their jurisdiction limited by the Constitution?

How do you propose to determine the constitutionality of a law, in a manner that is legal and binding, without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review?

I can not believe that the zombified believes that the Supreme Court actually conducts "judicial reviews" -

the scumbags recently AMENDED the 4th Amendment by incorporating the canine exception to an amendment which has been decimated by the police state.

The level of retardation is astounding.

.


.

Do you believe the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review or not?

I know it's futile to add this, but that is a yes or no question. You can why or why not to your answer, but see if you can answer yes or no. Surprise me.
 
Why do people who have no idea how the government works set themselves up as experts on how the government works? Tell me something, if the Supreme Court is the only way to determine what the Constitution means why is their jurisdiction limited by the Constitution?

How do you propose to determine the constitutionality of a law, in a manner that is legal and binding, without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review?

By using my own judgement, just like any other intelligent person, including the nine people who currently get paid to do exactly that. There are laws that Congress writes that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the court, which means they are not subject to judicial review. You might not like it, but them's the facts.

So when that Chicago law banned handguns outright, and you take away the power of judicial review from the Supreme Court,

then what happens?

The law stands. Is that what you want?
 
Oh, btw, if the federal government does not have any business/power regarding education,

according to the constitutionalists,

then homeschooling is NOT a fundamental right.
 
How do you propose to determine the constitutionality of a law, in a manner that is legal and binding, without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review?

I can not believe that the zombified believes that the Supreme Court actually conducts "judicial reviews" -

the scumbags recently AMENDED the 4th Amendment by incorporating the canine exception to an amendment which has been decimated by the police state.

The level of retardation is astounding.

.


.

Do you believe the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review or not?

I know it's futile to add this, but that is a yes or no question. You can why or why not to your answer, but see if you can answer yes or no. Surprise me.

Listen carefully.

The Founding Fathers set up the Supreme Court as a means of obtaining Judicial reviews by individuals who were going to use the Constitution as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

That is no longer the case.

What we have now is a system by which impostors use their position to ASSIST/collude with the executive and legislative branches in imposing a gargantuan police state -


If and when the Constitution is restored then, and only then , I will support judicial review.

.
 
How do you propose to determine the constitutionality of a law, in a manner that is legal and binding, without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review?

I can not believe that the zombified believes that the Supreme Court actually conducts "judicial reviews" -

the scumbags recently AMENDED the 4th Amendment by incorporating the canine exception to an amendment which has been decimated by the police state.

The level of retardation is astounding.

.


.

Do you believe the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review or not?

I know it's futile to add this, but that is a yes or no question. You can why or why not to your answer, but see if you can answer yes or no. Surprise me.

Yes, the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review. However, we the people should not just accept every conclusion reached by nine people as true gospel. These people are not infallible, and almost every decision reached is disputed by four of the nine members. Our Supreme Court has done more to destroy the form of government established by the founders, than all of the legislators combined.

When this Republic finally ends, the Supreme Court will have its fingerprints all over the corpse.
 
Oh, btw, if the federal government does not have any business/power regarding education,

according to the constitutionalists,

then homeschooling is NOT a fundamental right.

'Idiot' far too complementary a term for you.
I'll just call you 'Leftist.'


A right is not bestowed....it is inherent in a human being.


Perhaps redefining ‘right’ is in order.

a. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

b. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

c. Rights belong to each human individually.

d. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

e. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

f. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

g. 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.
Richard Lorenc, “Reinventing The Right,” p. 33-34.



I must tell you how much I love your posts: there is not a better semi-human exponent of Leftist dogma than you.
 
I can not believe that the zombified believes that the Supreme Court actually conducts "judicial reviews" -

the scumbags recently AMENDED the 4th Amendment by incorporating the canine exception to an amendment which has been decimated by the police state.

The level of retardation is astounding.

.


.

Do you believe the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review or not?

I know it's futile to add this, but that is a yes or no question. You can why or why not to your answer, but see if you can answer yes or no. Surprise me.

Yes, the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review. However, we the people should not just accept every conclusion reached by nine people as true gospel. These people are not infallible, and almost every decision reached is disputed by four of the nine members. Our Supreme Court has done more to destroy the form of government established by the founders, than all of the legislators combined.

When this Republic finally ends, the Supreme Court will have its fingerprints all over the corpse.

"Yes, the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review."


As long as decisions can be identified as actually representing the Constitution, and not just the caprice of 'social justice,' or some other imaginary 'good.'
 
Do you believe the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review or not?

I know it's futile to add this, but that is a yes or no question. You can why or why not to your answer, but see if you can answer yes or no. Surprise me.

Yes, the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review. However, we the people should not just accept every conclusion reached by nine people as true gospel. These people are not infallible, and almost every decision reached is disputed by four of the nine members. Our Supreme Court has done more to destroy the form of government established by the founders, than all of the legislators combined.

When this Republic finally ends, the Supreme Court will have its fingerprints all over the corpse.

"Yes, the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review."


As long as decisions can be identified as actually representing the Constitution, and not just the caprice of 'social justice,' or some other imaginary 'good.'

:clap2:

But so long as the Parasitic Faction votes they are going to going to wield considerable power . They will continue to elect congresscritters of the socialist persuasion.

Chavez used that technique successfully in Venezuela.

.
 
Oh, btw, if the federal government does not have any business/power regarding education,

according to the constitutionalists,

then homeschooling is NOT a fundamental right.

Your knowledge of our Constitution is right up there with the average 8th grader. Try reading the 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.

Since educating our children is not an enumerated power of the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, it is none of the federal government's business how we educate our children. Each state also has a Constitution that it must abide by.

In addition, the ninth amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to denyu or disparage others retained by the people.
 
Last edited:
Oh, btw, if the federal government does not have any business/power regarding education,

according to the constitutionalists,

then homeschooling is NOT a fundamental right.

'Idiot' far too complementary a term for you.
I'll just call you 'Leftist.'


A right is not bestowed....it is inherent in a human being.


Perhaps redefining ‘right’ is in order.

a. A right is something an individual has by virtue of being human.

b. Human beings are the only entities that have rights.

c. Rights belong to each human individually.

d. Rights are exercised by individuals, and are not given nor ascribed by any person of group, especially governments.

e. Rights are voluntary, in that individuals may choose whether to either exercise them or to ignore them.

f. Individual cannot have a right that infringes upon or diminishes the rights of others.

g. 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.
Richard Lorenc, “Reinventing The Right,” p. 33-34.



I must tell you how much I love your posts: there is not a better semi-human exponent of Leftist dogma than you.

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?
 
How do you propose to determine the constitutionality of a law, in a manner that is legal and binding, without the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review?

By using my own judgement, just like any other intelligent person, including the nine people who currently get paid to do exactly that. There are laws that Congress writes that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the court, which means they are not subject to judicial review. You might not like it, but them's the facts.

So when that Chicago law banned handguns outright, and you take away the power of judicial review from the Supreme Court,

then what happens?

The law stands. Is that what you want?

Funny, I don't recall saying anything close to that. What I said is that the Supreme court is not the final arbiter on what the Constitution means. I then pointed out that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is actually limited by the Constitution because, like every other part of our government, it is defined, and limited, by the Constitution. Feel free to find ask your teacher when you show up for 5th grade Social Studies tomorrow if you don't believe me.
 
Oh, btw, if the federal government does not have any business/power regarding education,

according to the constitutionalists,

then homeschooling is NOT a fundamental right.

Your knowledge of our Constitution is right up there with the average 8th grader. Try reading the 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.

Since educating our children is not an enumerated power of the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, it is none of the federal government's business how we educate our children. Each state also has a Constitution that it must abide by.

In addition, the ninth amendment states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to denyu or disparage others retained by the people.

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?
 
I can not believe that the zombified believes that the Supreme Court actually conducts "judicial reviews" -

the scumbags recently AMENDED the 4th Amendment by incorporating the canine exception to an amendment which has been decimated by the police state.

The level of retardation is astounding.

.


.

Do you believe the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review or not?

I know it's futile to add this, but that is a yes or no question. You can why or why not to your answer, but see if you can answer yes or no. Surprise me.

Listen carefully.

The Founding Fathers set up the Supreme Court as a means of obtaining Judicial reviews by individuals who were going to use the Constitution as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

That is no longer the case.

What we have now is a system by which impostors use their position to ASSIST/collude with the executive and legislative branches in imposing a gargantuan police state -


If and when the Constitution is restored then, and only then , I will support judicial review.

.

So you oppose the overturning of the Chicago handgun ban as unconstitutional?

That required judicial review.

lol, I'll bet you don't. I'll bet suddenly, momentarily, you think judicial review is tits on a biscuit!!

(that means awesome. it's a private joke, sorry)
 
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?

It was decided a long time ago that children are not the property of the state and the state can not monopolize education.

PIERCE v. SOCIETY SISTERS PIERCE, 45 S. Ct. 571, 268 U.S. 510 (U.S. 06/01/1925

.
 
By using my own judgement, just like any other intelligent person, including the nine people who currently get paid to do exactly that. There are laws that Congress writes that do not fall under the jurisdiction of the court, which means they are not subject to judicial review. You might not like it, but them's the facts.

So when that Chicago law banned handguns outright, and you take away the power of judicial review from the Supreme Court,

then what happens?

The law stands. Is that what you want?

Funny, I don't recall saying anything close to that. What I said is that the Supreme court is not the final arbiter on what the Constitution means. I then pointed out that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is actually limited by the Constitution because, like every other part of our government, it is defined, and limited, by the Constitution. Feel free to find ask your teacher when you show up for 5th grade Social Studies tomorrow if you don't believe me.

Once again you babble away providing exactly zero support for your claims.
 
Do you believe the SCOTUS should have the power of judicial review or not?

I know it's futile to add this, but that is a yes or no question. You can why or why not to your answer, but see if you can answer yes or no. Surprise me.

Listen carefully.

The Founding Fathers set up the Supreme Court as a means of obtaining Judicial reviews by individuals who were going to use the Constitution as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

That is no longer the case.

What we have now is a system by which impostors use their position to ASSIST/collude with the executive and legislative branches in imposing a gargantuan police state -


If and when the Constitution is restored then, and only then , I will support judicial review.

.

So you oppose the overturning of the Chicago handgun ban as unconstitutional?

That required judicial review.

lol, I'll bet you don't. I'll bet suddenly, momentarily, you think judicial review is tits on a biscuit!!

(that means awesome. it's a private joke, sorry)

Really?

Is the right to life, and to defend the same UNALIENABLE?

If yes, why did it require judicial review?

.
 
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?

It was decided a long time ago that children are not the property of the state and the state can not monopolize education.

PIERCE v. SOCIETY SISTERS PIERCE, 45 S. Ct. 571, 268 U.S. 510 (U.S. 06/01/1925

.

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Let me be direct: Barry Goldwater said, in his opinion, "no powers regarding education were given to the federal government. Consequently, under the Tenth Amendment, jurisdiction over the entire field was reserved to the States."

Was he wrong? If so why. If not why not?
 
Listen carefully.

The Founding Fathers set up the Supreme Court as a means of obtaining Judicial reviews by individuals who were going to use the Constitution as the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND.

That is no longer the case.

What we have now is a system by which impostors use their position to ASSIST/collude with the executive and legislative branches in imposing a gargantuan police state -


If and when the Constitution is restored then, and only then , I will support judicial review.

.

So you oppose the overturning of the Chicago handgun ban as unconstitutional?

That required judicial review.

lol, I'll bet you don't. I'll bet suddenly, momentarily, you think judicial review is tits on a biscuit!!

(that means awesome. it's a private joke, sorry)

Really?

Is the right to life, and to defend the same UNALIENABLE?

If yes, why did it require judicial review?

.

Without judicial review the Chicago handgun ban would be law today. Without judicial review, it's constitutionality could not have been challenged.
 

Forum List

Back
Top