Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[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?

Many homeschoolers do so on religious grounds.

Covered under the first amendment.

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

 

[Moonglow]

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

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

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

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

 

[Misty]

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

This is where you prove your ignorance.

A parent teaches their child everything. From talking to using a fork to swimming to walking to riding a bike to reading and writing to being kind to use their imagination. The basic building blocks of life are taught at home by the parents.

Forcing children to go to public school, a place where parents know they are liberally indoctrinated, is the crime.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Misty]

"In the early 1950's, racial segregation in public schools was the norm across America. Although all the schools in a given district were supposed to be equal, most black schools were far inferior to their white counterparts."

Early Civil Rights Struggles: Brown v. Board of Education


And this remains true to this day. Even under a black president.

And once schools were desegregated, they remained segregated inside and I believe they still are to this day. Whites hang together, Hispanics hang together, Asians hang ttogether, and blacks hang together. Rarely some will mix but generally each race hangs with other people of the same race.

It isn't because of racism. it's because culturally people feel more comfortable hanging out with people that look like they do.

 

[clevergirl]

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!!

WHAT...you smack talking her public school education?

 

[Misty]

Public school is unfortunately neccessary because not everyone has access to private schools nor the ability to home school their children.

However for those that can homeschool and send their kids to private school, it should always remain an option.

 

[Misty]

 

[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.

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.'

They were too busy misspelling signs to take the time to cut holes in their pillow cases.

 

[Katzndogz]

Some sort of home schooling is necessary, if only to UNlearn whatever pap was learned in school. When a child learns about global warming in school, it is an obligation of the parents to expose what they learned as a hoax.

 

[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.'

They were too busy misspelling signs to take the time to cut holes in their pillow cases.

Thanks for not denying the import of my post.

 

[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.

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

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

Oh..wait.....



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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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??

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


Rights.


There are rights...and there are benefits.

They are very different.


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


You have no 'right' to a third time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

I can understand why that remains a personal issue for you.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

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

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

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

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

 

[NYcarbineer]

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??

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


Rights.


There are rights...and there are benefits.

They are very different.


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


You have no 'right' to a third time.

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

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

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

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

 

[clevergirl]

Your hero Barry Goldwater said this about rights:

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

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

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

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


Rights.


There are rights...and there are benefits.

They are very different.


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


You have no 'right' to a third time.

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

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

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

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

It is implied in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); see also Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (plurality); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); Pierce v. Soc’y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). In addition, the Court has recognized that parents have a “fundamental interest” in guiding “the religious future and education of their children.” Yoder, 406 U.S. at 232 (emphasis added).

Curriculum Matters | American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

such as one requiring teacher certification,

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

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

 

[Unkotare]

"In the early 1950's, racial segregation in public schools was the norm across America. Although all the schools in a given district were supposed to be equal, most black schools were far inferior to their white counterparts."

Early Civil Rights Struggles: Brown v. Board of Education


And this remains true to this day. Even under a black president.

And once schools were desegregated, they remained segregated inside and I believe they still are to this day. Whites hang together, Hispanics hang together, Asians hang ttogether, and blacks hang together. Rarely some will mix but generally each race hangs with other people of the same race.

It isn't because of racism. it's because culturally people feel more comfortable hanging out with people that look like they do.

What do you mean by "rarely," and do you have a link with proof and percentages?