Is Home-Schooling a Fundamental Right?

[PaulS1950]

The constitution doesn't bestow rights.
The amendments 1 through 10 enumerate rights that exist, guarantee rights that are not enumerated and let us all know that the rights we have extend beyond those listed. Those listed and unlisted rights are protected against infringement - not only by the federal government but by any governmental organization - including the people's popular vote.

Even if we repealed one of those first ten amendments, the people would still have the right that it listed and it would still be protected by the constitution.

It would really help you understand if you took the time to study the constitution.

 

[bodecea]

I query whether those championing the oppressed Germans would support amnest for a Norwegian couple, whose country has an official state religion called Lutheran, to home school their kids to be athiests.

I wonder if they'd give asylum to people in countries where the fundamental right to abortion is denied.

There is no fundamental right to abortion.

There is a fundamental right for a woman to have privacy in medical decisions concerning her own body....until a fetus becames a viable child.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution doesn't bestow rights.
The amendments 1 through 10 enumerate rights that exist, guarantee rights that are not enumerated and let us all know that the rights we have extend beyond those listed. Those listed and unlisted rights are protected against infringement - not only by the federal government but by any governmental organization - including the people's popular vote.

Even if we repealed one of those first ten amendments, the people would still have the right that it listed and it would still be protected by the constitution.

It would really help you understand if you took the time to study the constitution.

The Constitution protects the exercise of those rights it recognizes as rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Consider this.

The Constitution will protect the right of two adults to have consensual sex, but it allows each individual state to define what an adult is.

How is that possible if rights exist regardless of the Constitution, regardless of laws and government?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder if they'd give asylum to people in countries where the fundamental right to abortion is denied.

There is no fundamental right to abortion.

Sure there is. By your own definition of rights.

Really?

My definition of rights does not include killing other people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No that's part of what makes them someone's idea of what rights might be.

Tell me something, if you are in Mexico, and they throw you in jail and let you starve to death, were they right or wrong?

What is wrong with you exactly?

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

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wonder if they'd give asylum to people in countries where the fundamental right to abortion is denied.

There is no fundamental right to abortion.

There is a fundamental right for a woman to have privacy in medical decisions concerning her own body....until a fetus becames a viable child.

You might have been able to argue that before, but you lost all right to privacy when you supported Obamacare.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Consider this.

The Constitution will protect the right of two adults to have consensual sex, but it allows each individual state to define what an adult is.

How is that possible if rights exist regardless of the Constitution, regardless of laws and government?

You really should shut up, you are embarrassing yourself. The Constitution does not protect the right of two adults to have sex, if it did prostitution would be legal and the Mann Act would have been ruled unconstitutional in 1910.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Consider this.

The Constitution will protect the right of two adults to have consensual sex, but it allows each individual state to define what an adult is.

How is that possible if rights exist regardless of the Constitution, regardless of laws and government?

You really should shut up, you are embarrassing yourself. The Constitution does not protect the right of two adults to have sex, if it did prostitution would be legal and the Mann Act would have been ruled unconstitutional in 1910.

I thought rights to you were rights no matter what the law said. You're beginning to choke on your own nonsense, which, incidentally,

is certainly not the least entertaining thing I've seen so far this week.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is no fundamental right to abortion.

Sure there is. By your own definition of rights.

Really?

My definition of rights does not include killing other people.

Your definition of rights is irrelevant. No one appointed you the official definer of rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tell me something, if you are in Mexico, and they throw you in jail and let you starve to death, were they right or wrong?

What is wrong with you exactly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SuMar]

See now you've just gone mental.

So the right to an abortion existed before Roe v. Wade, it just wasn't a constitutionally protected right...

eh?

Abortion isn't the topic in this thread, it's homeschooling.

The poster I responded to is talking about 'rights' plural. Why don't you crybaby to him if you have a problem you massive twat.

And people wonder why I think liberals lack class...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Consider this.

The Constitution will protect the right of two adults to have consensual sex, but it allows each individual state to define what an adult is.

How is that possible if rights exist regardless of the Constitution, regardless of laws and government?

You really should shut up, you are embarrassing yourself. The Constitution does not protect the right of two adults to have sex, if it did prostitution would be legal and the Mann Act would have been ruled unconstitutional in 1910.

I thought rights to you were rights no matter what the law said. You're beginning to choke on your own nonsense, which, incidentally,

is certainly not the least entertaining thing I've seen so far this week.

I choked? You made the claim that the Constitution protects the right to have consensual sex, I provided evidence that it does not, how did I choke?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sure there is. By your own definition of rights.

Really?

My definition of rights does not include killing other people.

Your definition of rights is irrelevant. No one appointed you the official definer of rights.

My definition of rights is the only thing that is relevant when you are trying to argue that my definition of rights makes something a right.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What is wrong with you exactly?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really? What lawmaker decided that abortion is a right? If it is lawmakers that decide what rights are abortion would not be a right, it would be a wrong because the lawmakers said that abortion is murder until someone else said that it is a right.

Rights are only ideas if you think that the universe is a computer program controlled by a geeky kid in his parent's basement. Rights are something that exist wherever people exist, the simple proof of this is that, even when the lawmakers insist that slavery is legal, just, and even moral, slaves rebel. That would never happen if rights were not inherent in every human.

The only thing government ever does is take away our rights. laws exist to limit government and protect us from it, they do not exist to establish our rights. I honestly do not understand why that concept is so hard for you to grasp, you have actually provided plenty of quotes that say exactly what I am saying, do you not read your own posts?

 

[Samson]

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

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

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

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

By "legally established" I suppose you mean that they biggest monkey in the room agrees with them.

Of course, he can always change what he agrees with.

Lacking such a Monkey for the past 100,000 years, and prefering a slightly less whimsical source, we rely on our governing body to create our rights, an Executive to protect those rights, and a court that is expected to make more judicial decisions than a monkey (the bar is not set very high)

But, the ONLY difference between the rights we would receive from the Monkey, and those rights we receive from what was a representative government that only the most naive citizen thinks actually represents them is the time it takes to change rights.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

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

By "legally established" I suppose you mean that they biggest monkey in the room agrees with them.

Of course, he can always change what he agrees with.

Lacking such a Monkey for the past 100,000 years, and prefering a slightly less whimsical source, we rely on our governing body to create our rights, an Executive to protect those rights, and a court that is expected to make more judicial decisions than a monkey (the bar is not set very high)

But, the ONLY difference between the rights we would receive from the Monkey, and those rights we receive from what was a representative government that only the most naive citizen thinks actually represents them is the time it takes to change rights.

If you think there is no value in having a government to protect your rights, I suggest you move somewhere where the government doesn't protect your rights,

and then get back to us on which circumstance you prefer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You really should shut up, you are embarrassing yourself. The Constitution does not protect the right of two adults to have sex, if it did prostitution would be legal and the Mann Act would have been ruled unconstitutional in 1910.

I thought rights to you were rights no matter what the law said. You're beginning to choke on your own nonsense, which, incidentally,

is certainly not the least entertaining thing I've seen so far this week.

I choked? You made the claim that the Constitution protects the right to have consensual sex, I provided evidence that it does not, how did I choke?

The Court ruled in Lawrence v Texas:

"The petitioners [Lawrence and Garner] are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime."

Your obfuscation notwithstanding.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Tell me something, if you are in Mexico, and they throw you in jail and let you starve to death, were they right or wrong?

What is wrong with you exactly?

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

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

The highlighted portion wrongly assumes that no one can object to the law. We have a government of the People in this country because we want the People to decide what rights we have and what rules we will follow. There is no Rights Fairy.

The right to legally own a handgun in Chicago was recently upheld by the Court. The Court of Law. The Rights Fairy did not magically overturn that law, or prevent it from being passed in the first place.

We relied on the more powerful central government to dictate to the smaller, more local, less powerful government what the rules are, what the right is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[Really? What lawmaker decided that abortion is a right? If it is lawmakers that decide what rights are abortion would not be a right, it would be a wrong because the lawmakers said that abortion is murder until someone else said that it is a right.

Constitutional law is made by the Supreme Court. Roe v. Wade is constitutional law. Roe v. Wade happened when that big arm of the big central government told the smaller government,

you can't do that because that is a violation of rights. The Supreme Court identified the right and protected it.

Just as they did when they shot down the Chicago handgun ban.