Is homeschooling a good solution?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So, you have a problem with actually teaching based on the Supreme Court decisions that explains those so-called rights? Isn't that educating the students to your side also?

Perhaps if you were a teacher or actually sat in a classroom while these type of lessons are being taught, you might actually have a difference of opinion. But you could never do that, right?

SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

For example Chelsea Clinton admits that a new fascist SCOTUS justice can ELIMINATE our right to bear arms. If you teach your students that SCOTUS decisions are the Law of the Land you then would be teaching them wrongly.

Any decision disarming Americans will be completely and totally IGNORED.


.

Precisely. SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The constitution is the law of the land. It says so right in Article 6.

Yes, and nowhere does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to tell us what the Constitution "says." They gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison.

I think the State Legislatures should decide what is Constitutional. If you think about it, that really would be the test that's consistent with how our government was set up. The Supreme Court deciding is the Federal government deciding what powers the Federal government has, which is why it doesn't work.

The individual legislatures may be as corrupt as the Federal one, but they have different interests. So at least it's an actual check and balance. Power divided is power checked. The Supreme Court's not power divided, it's power condensed

The state legislatures do have a say in what is Constitutional. They can amend the Constitution any time they feel the need to do so.

Well, actually that's not exactly true. Congress can propose amendments by passing bills which, if passed by two-thirds majority in each house of Congress, goes on to the States for approval to become Amendments to the Constitution.

Or, the States can call for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. Then, the amendments approved by the Convention are then sent to the States to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions of each State.

So, it's not the easy process you imply, and rightly so.

I did not say nor imply it was easy.

 

[Unkotare]

So, about homeschooling...

 

[Centinel]

I did not say nor imply it was easy.

Amending the constitution was purposely intended to be "not easy".

 

[Unkotare]

So, is there any dispute left here with "homeschooling works for some folks, private school works for some, and public school is the best option for others"? Everyone cool with that?

 

[kaz]

SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

For example Chelsea Clinton admits that a new fascist SCOTUS justice can ELIMINATE our right to bear arms. If you teach your students that SCOTUS decisions are the Law of the Land you then would be teaching them wrongly.

Any decision disarming Americans will be completely and totally IGNORED.


.

Precisely. SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The constitution is the law of the land. It says so right in Article 6.

Yes, and nowhere does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to tell us what the Constitution "says." They gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison.

I think the State Legislatures should decide what is Constitutional. If you think about it, that really would be the test that's consistent with how our government was set up. The Supreme Court deciding is the Federal government deciding what powers the Federal government has, which is why it doesn't work.

The individual legislatures may be as corrupt as the Federal one, but they have different interests. So at least it's an actual check and balance. Power divided is power checked. The Supreme Court's not power divided, it's power condensed

The state legislatures do have a say in what is Constitutional. They can amend the Constitution any time they feel the need to do so.

That isn't what I said. I was talking about a better solution than judicial review where the Federal Government decides what Federal laws are Constitutional. Hmm...can I do that? I don't know, let me ask me ... I hope you read your students' essays better than that

So you just want to throw the Constitution out? Typical airhead solution to a problem above your ability to reason.

Having States be the check and balance for the Constitution rather than the Supreme court is to "throw the Constitution out."



What?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Precisely. SCOTUS decisions are NOT the law of the land.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;"

SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The constitution is the law of the land. It says so right in Article 6.

Yes, and nowhere does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to tell us what the Constitution "says." They gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison.

I think the State Legislatures should decide what is Constitutional. If you think about it, that really would be the test that's consistent with how our government was set up. The Supreme Court deciding is the Federal government deciding what powers the Federal government has, which is why it doesn't work.

The individual legislatures may be as corrupt as the Federal one, but they have different interests. So at least it's an actual check and balance. Power divided is power checked. The Supreme Court's not power divided, it's power condensed

The state legislatures do have a say in what is Constitutional. They can amend the Constitution any time they feel the need to do so.

That isn't what I said. I was talking about a better solution than judicial review where the Federal Government decides what Federal laws are Constitutional. Hmm...can I do that? I don't know, let me ask me ... I hope you read your students' essays better than that

So you just want to throw the Constitution out? Typical airhead solution to a problem above your ability to reason.

Having States be the check and balance for the Constitution rather than the Supreme court is to "throw the Constitution out."



What?

Yes, because that is what the Constitution provides.

 

[initforme]

I don't trust any other person than me teaching my kids their religious values. The way I, ME, interprets the bible is the ONLY valid opinion on the topic. As a lifelong practicing christian nobody else is qualified and to teach it one smidgeon differently is a major form of indoctrination.

 

[kaz]

Yes, and nowhere does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to tell us what the Constitution "says." They gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison.

I think the State Legislatures should decide what is Constitutional. If you think about it, that really would be the test that's consistent with how our government was set up. The Supreme Court deciding is the Federal government deciding what powers the Federal government has, which is why it doesn't work.

The individual legislatures may be as corrupt as the Federal one, but they have different interests. So at least it's an actual check and balance. Power divided is power checked. The Supreme Court's not power divided, it's power condensed

The state legislatures do have a say in what is Constitutional. They can amend the Constitution any time they feel the need to do so.

That isn't what I said. I was talking about a better solution than judicial review where the Federal Government decides what Federal laws are Constitutional. Hmm...can I do that? I don't know, let me ask me ... I hope you read your students' essays better than that

So you just want to throw the Constitution out? Typical airhead solution to a problem above your ability to reason.

Having States be the check and balance for the Constitution rather than the Supreme court is to "throw the Constitution out."



What?

Yes, because that is what the Constitution provides.

First of all, even if that were true,the Constitution can be changed, they are called Constitutional Amendments. It's happened before. Wanting to change the Constitution isn't wanting to throw it out. Do you say the same of other Constitutional amendments? The proposers wanted to throw out the Constitution? LMAO

And wow, you just lost this discussion. It's NOT in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself judicial review. Google Marbury v. Madison. Wow, you just proved teachers don't teach what the Constitution says, LOL.

Dude, seriously

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The state legislatures do have a say in what is Constitutional. They can amend the Constitution any time they feel the need to do so.

That isn't what I said. I was talking about a better solution than judicial review where the Federal Government decides what Federal laws are Constitutional. Hmm...can I do that? I don't know, let me ask me ... I hope you read your students' essays better than that

So you just want to throw the Constitution out? Typical airhead solution to a problem above your ability to reason.

Having States be the check and balance for the Constitution rather than the Supreme court is to "throw the Constitution out."



What?

Yes, because that is what the Constitution provides.

First of all, even if that were true,the Constitution can be changed, they are called Constitutional Amendments. It's happened before. Wanting to change the Constitution isn't wanting to throw it out. Do you say the same of other Constitutional amendments? The proposers wanted to throw out the Constitution? LMAO

And wow, you just lost this discussion. It's NOT in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself judicial review. Google Marbury v. Madison. Wow, you just proved teachers don't teach what the Constitution says, LOL.

Dude, seriously

Read back through the posts. Is you brain overloaded so much that you don't realize that you just agreed with my post about changing the Constitution?

Liberalism is a mental defect as well as uber-conservative conspiracy wackos like you appear to be. I am done conversing with a brick wall.

 

[Unkotare]

So, is there any dispute left here with "homeschooling works for some folks, private school works for some, and public school is the best option for others"? Everyone cool with that?

Yeah?

 

[kaz]

That isn't what I said. I was talking about a better solution than judicial review where the Federal Government decides what Federal laws are Constitutional. Hmm...can I do that? I don't know, let me ask me ... I hope you read your students' essays better than that

So you just want to throw the Constitution out? Typical airhead solution to a problem above your ability to reason.

Having States be the check and balance for the Constitution rather than the Supreme court is to "throw the Constitution out."



What?

Yes, because that is what the Constitution provides.

First of all, even if that were true,the Constitution can be changed, they are called Constitutional Amendments. It's happened before. Wanting to change the Constitution isn't wanting to throw it out. Do you say the same of other Constitutional amendments? The proposers wanted to throw out the Constitution? LMAO

And wow, you just lost this discussion. It's NOT in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself judicial review. Google Marbury v. Madison. Wow, you just proved teachers don't teach what the Constitution says, LOL.

Dude, seriously

Read back through the posts. Is you brain overloaded so much that you don't realize that you just agreed with my post about changing the Constitution?

Liberalism is a mental defect as well as uber-conservative conspiracy wackos like you appear to be. I am done conversing with a brick wall.

Listen you limp dicked progressive, judicial review is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

The supreme court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison. You still haven't gotten past the needs of your vagina and looked it up, have you?

 

[rcfieldz]

Is this thread about the Amish?

 

[Papageorgio]

It comes down to choices and if you want public school...great! You want a private school...great and if you want to home school...great.

It is fine no matter what some asshole teacher/administrator thinks. Or how great he thinks he is.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So you just want to throw the Constitution out? Typical airhead solution to a problem above your ability to reason.

Having States be the check and balance for the Constitution rather than the Supreme court is to "throw the Constitution out."



What?

Yes, because that is what the Constitution provides.

First of all, even if that were true,the Constitution can be changed, they are called Constitutional Amendments. It's happened before. Wanting to change the Constitution isn't wanting to throw it out. Do you say the same of other Constitutional amendments? The proposers wanted to throw out the Constitution? LMAO

And wow, you just lost this discussion. It's NOT in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself judicial review. Google Marbury v. Madison. Wow, you just proved teachers don't teach what the Constitution says, LOL.

Dude, seriously

Read back through the posts. Is you brain overloaded so much that you don't realize that you just agreed with my post about changing the Constitution?

Liberalism is a mental defect as well as uber-conservative conspiracy wackos like you appear to be. I am done conversing with a brick wall.

Listen you limp dicked progressive, judicial review is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

The supreme court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison. You still haven't gotten past the needs of your vagina and looked it up, have you?

Goodbye you poor excuse for a rectum.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It comes down to choices and if you want public school...great! You want a private school...great and if you want to home school...great.

It is fine no matter what some asshole teacher/administrator thinks. Or how great he thinks he is.

You obviously are incapable of reading this thread, because I have supported anyone's choice for public, private or homeschool. You flaccid attempts at trying to portray me as something I am not, is really inept.

I guess that is all you have in your life, and that is truly sad.

 

[Papageorgio]

It comes down to choices and if you want public school...great! You want a private school...great and if you want to home school...great.

It is fine no matter what some asshole teacher/administrator thinks. Or how great he thinks he is.

You obviously are incapable of reading this thread, because I have supported anyone's choice for public, private or homeschool. You flaccid attempts at trying to portray me as something I am not, is really inept.

I guess that is all you have in your life, and that is truly sad.

Your constant demeaning is what is sad. The fact you like to put others down is sad. There are a lot of ways of getting a point across, you chose the low road.

 

[Mac1958]

So, is there any dispute left here with "homeschooling works for some folks, private school works for some, and public school is the best option for others"? Everyone cool with that?

You'd think.

But as I understand it, we're no longer allowed to be cool with reason and compromise. We're supposed to fight and attack and insult over every single issue.

I think that's a law now.
.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It comes down to choices and if you want public school...great! You want a private school...great and if you want to home school...great.

It is fine no matter what some asshole teacher/administrator thinks. Or how great he thinks he is.

You obviously are incapable of reading this thread, because I have supported anyone's choice for public, private or homeschool. You flaccid attempts at trying to portray me as something I am not, is really inept.

I guess that is all you have in your life, and that is truly sad.

Your constant demeaning is what is sad. The fact you like to put others down is sad. There are a lot of ways of getting a point across, you chose the low road.

Have you criticized the others who have gone off the deep end with their personal attacks and profanity? Of course not, you hypocrite!

 

[Papageorgio]

It comes down to choices and if you want public school...great! You want a private school...great and if you want to home school...great.

It is fine no matter what some asshole teacher/administrator thinks. Or how great he thinks he is.

You obviously are incapable of reading this thread, because I have supported anyone's choice for public, private or homeschool. You flaccid attempts at trying to portray me as something I am not, is really inept.

I guess that is all you have in your life, and that is truly sad.

Your constant demeaning is what is sad. The fact you like to put others down is sad. There are a lot of ways of getting a point across, you chose the low road.

Have you criticized the others who have gone off the deep end with their personal attacks and profanity? Of course not, you hypocrite!

At least you admit you have gone off the deep end, that is a start.

 

[kaz]

Having States be the check and balance for the Constitution rather than the Supreme court is to "throw the Constitution out."



What?

Yes, because that is what the Constitution provides.

First of all, even if that were true,the Constitution can be changed, they are called Constitutional Amendments. It's happened before. Wanting to change the Constitution isn't wanting to throw it out. Do you say the same of other Constitutional amendments? The proposers wanted to throw out the Constitution? LMAO

And wow, you just lost this discussion. It's NOT in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself judicial review. Google Marbury v. Madison. Wow, you just proved teachers don't teach what the Constitution says, LOL.

Dude, seriously

Read back through the posts. Is you brain overloaded so much that you don't realize that you just agreed with my post about changing the Constitution?

Liberalism is a mental defect as well as uber-conservative conspiracy wackos like you appear to be. I am done conversing with a brick wall.

Listen you limp dicked progressive, judicial review is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION.

The supreme court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison. You still haven't gotten past the needs of your vagina and looked it up, have you?

Goodbye you poor excuse for a rectum.

If you develop the ability to read and retain information let me know. You just said Judicial review is in the Constitution in a discussion where you said schools teach the Constitution accurately. I even told you it's not in the Constitution and gave you the actual source of judicial review, which was Marbury v. Madison. You just blew it off like you do everything else and repeated your ignorance