Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Damn, still wrong. Civil rights are those created by law, natural/political rights rights exist outside of law. Both can be, and are, protected by law.

 

[Againsheila]

when a parent home schools a child to a pack of lies instead of reality that is child abuse.


some parents care MORE about their own ideas than teaching their child how to think for themselves

wow, you truly hate parents instilling values into their kids, don't you....

I noticed she never answered my post pointing out all the lies the schools now teach our children. I home schooled my oldest for 3 years and I learned more in that 3 years than I did in 12 years of public school. I once spoke to an educator who said home-school parents were the most educated people he'd ever met.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

 

[NYcarbineer]

'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?

Damn, still wrong. Civil rights are those created by law, natural/political rights rights exist outside of law. Both can be, and are, protected by law.

Stop posting, you're making a fool of yourself.

 

[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?

State bans on home schooling don't even hold up in state courts, why would I need to find a constitutional argument to defend the practice?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

State bans on home schooling don't even hold up in state courts, why would I need to find a constitutional argument to defend the practice?

Another dodge.

I highlighted the part you didn't read.

 

[NYcarbineer]

'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?

Damn, still wrong. Civil rights are those created by law, natural/political rights rights exist outside of law. Both can be, and are, protected by law.

Where in the Constitution is homeschooling protected as a right? Specifically.

 

[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?

Damn, still wrong. Civil rights are those created by law, natural/political rights rights exist outside of law. Both can be, and are, protected by law.

Stop posting, you're making a fool of yourself.

It should be easy to prove me wrong.

Unless, of course, I am actually right.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Let me direct:

NO POWERS OVER EDUCATION WERE GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

THE SCOTUS HAS RULED THAT THE 14TH AMENDMENT GIVES THE STATES NO POWER TO MONOPOLIZE EDUCATION NOR TO CONSIDER CHILDREN AS THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE


CAPISCE?

.

 

[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?

State bans on home schooling don't even hold up in state courts, why would I need to find a constitutional argument to defend the practice?

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.

 

[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?

Damn, still wrong. Civil rights are those created by law, natural/political rights rights exist outside of law. Both can be, and are, protected by law.

Where in the Constitution is homeschooling protected as a right? Specifically.

The same place abortion is.

 

[Contumacious]

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?

Damn, still wrong. Civil rights are those created by law, natural/political rights rights exist outside of law. Both can be, and are, protected by law.

Where in the Constitution is homeschooling protected as a right? Specifically.

Yo Vern,

The Government school should have taught you that the purpose of the Constitution is to grant the government specific authority , it is NOT to grant WE THE PEOPLE rights.

.

 

[Caroljo]

it is really silly to watch the MAJORIY religion in the country lie and pretend they are being opursecuted simply becuase others have a right to talk publically about their religions too.

You really taught your 4 yr old to read??? Shit...you can't even spell!!

 

[eots]

whats my affirmation to prove ?..I made no affirmation ...you did

You sure did. Go back and read what you posted about private schooling doing such and such.

I asked for the facts. I am still asking for the facts, the numbers, the proof.

That affirmation is yours, or are you as screwed up on this as you are on your conspiracy theories?

I'm guessing that once again you never linked to the article.

At any rate, it is an article from US Today, an admittedly dubious source. It does contain numbers. I'm not sure what you mean by "hard" numbers. I am sure that you have offered nothing to refute the numbers cited in the article.

Doubly sad, is your inability to hold your own against as big a moron as eots.

Samsons panties are still in a bunch from losing the the ADHD debate

 

[Samson]

Problem: E=IR, Solve for "I" without using a fraction. Answer: I=E/R

For your information, a fraction is nothing more than an indication of division. It indicates that the denominator is divided into the numerator. One cannot do higher math without using complex fractions, and one cannot learn any engineering skill without knowing higher math.

The operation is called dividing.

One cannot do "higher math" without dividing.

Fractions are a numerical representation of a part of a whole number. This can be accomplished with decimals; e.g. 1/2 = 0.50

1/3 can be represented as 0.3, 0.33, 0.333, ad infinum.

Engineering is done with computers. Fractions are meaningless, but division is not, within digital computing. Thus fractions are meaningless for engineering, and quite frankly any other real-world purpose.

You failed your own challenge, Dumbass. You cannot solve for I without using a fraction. Nor, can you convert a fraction into a decimal equivalent without dividing the demominator into the numerator.

Your grade school definition of a fraction applies to all fractions, but does not explain to you that fractions can exist with unknowns as part of the fraction. There is no way to convert them to a decimal notation because you do not know the unknown quantity.

All engineering is not done with a computer, and you do not learn engineering through the computer. To fully understand the theory of electricity, an electrical technician or an electrical engineer has to know ohm's law throughly, and that means he has to know how to solve those equations. In addition, those computers didn't just automatically begin solving complex equations, they had to be programmed by people who understood the math involved.

All Engineering is not done on a computer?

What rock have you been hiding under?

Perhaps you should check your credability: It seems to have been buried before 1950.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Wait till home-schoolers with brown skin start using the same excuse to come to the US. The Right will suddenly change their tune and find an excuse to exclude them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wait till home-schoolers with brown skin start using the same excuse to come to the US. The Right will suddenly change their tune and find an excuse to exclude them.

What a dunce you are.

Bet you were one of those claiming that the TeaParty was two holes in a pillowcase short of a Klansman…

Just proves the truth of the old saying 'we can only judge others by ourselves.'

 

[NYcarbineer]

'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?

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??