California: Judge orders homeschoolers into government education

[jmdrake]

No one is saying you cannot home school your children. So this idea of "rights of homeschoolers" is flawed. First off, where do you find this "constitutional right". Secondly, California never said you couldn't homeschool, just if you did it had to be with a qualified person. Thirdly, if you truely believe in states rights, then no you should not be pushing a new law at the federal level on education, the government has no business in it and new laws only add to the problem.

You're missing the point. There is no constitutional "right" for the federal government to be involved in education at all. But the fact of the matter is that they are! The only way to counter balance that is to protect the rights of parents. That's why Dr. Paul introduced the bill I referenced.

Here's the other point your missing. Let's say the state arbitrarily decides that "qualified" means "atheist". (I'm sure that would please people who think Christian = suicide bomber. ) Then the state has taken away your right to educate your child. Also if "qualified" = "federal guidelines" then we are back to the situation where it's really the federal government and not the state dictating that you can't homeschool! The state is simply acting as a surrogate for the federal government.

This is played out in a lot of issues. For example the Real ID act is totally unconstitutional. But it's implemented through the states. The states acting as a surrogate does not make the Real ID constitutional. The same holds true for any "right" that we may have. If the federal government can coerce the states to deny its citizens their rights with a veneer of "states rights" thrown on top the effect is still the same.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

Tell me this. Why didn't we have Christian suicide bombers 100 years ago when this country was arguably more Christian?

I said "religious", not Christian. I was specifically referring to Muslims, as you should know. Christians have a different approach to government. For an analogy, let us examine how communism (theocracy) spreads. Trotskyites (Muslims) advocate revolution and an overthrow of the government. Christians (Leninists) advocate taking over the government from within (as they did with the Republican party). Same outcome (death and destruction), different strategy.

 

[ErikBlack]

The gay marriage argument is taken completely out of context. It is assumed by liberal proponents of gay marriage that the government is denying gay people certain benefits that are available to everyone else. That is not correct. Marriage benefits are only available to one specific group of people; married heterosexuals. They are not available to single people, single mothers, or any other group. Gays are not being singled out for exclusion, they are simply not being included because they do not fit the criteria the government has established to quality for the subsidy.

Marriage is subsidized on a state and federal level, through tax breaks and other benefits, because it is believed to contribute to a healthy society. Being single and being gay are not considered to be as beneficial. People are still free to be single and be gay because that is their choice, but they are not granted the same level of favoritism as married people. In my opinion this is wrong, not because everyone should be privy to government favoritism, but because no-one should. We should be working to remove government from people's personal affairs and prevent it from acting as a social engineer. Society should evolve by the same forces that drive the free market, voluntary cooperation, supply and demand. These forces are organic, natural and spontaneous. They cannot be reigned or controlled by any government or entity, which is what makes them the perfect vessel for change. This ensures that change occurs naturally, when the environment is right to accommodate and welcome such change, and not prematurely, when the environment will be so hostile toward such change that government force is needed to defend it.

 

[Tdcci]

OH, so you and yours get to decide who we can and can't hate then? Sweet.

No, the judges do.

Ironically, they claim lifestyle is your downfall.

?????

And you're right because.....?

I explained why I thought I was right, in that post. I suspect you ignored it though, because "Yes" was an answer enough for you.

 

[angelatc]

THe whole country is a free speech zone. At least, on public property. Anything else is a mockery of the intent of the First AMendment.

 

[IRO-bot]

I think freedom of speech zones are ridiculous, but I also think they are constitutional.



Supreme Court to the rescue.

You link is blocked at my work. But wow. How is free speach zones constitutional? Please directly cite the part of the constitution that allows for this.

 

[jmdrake]

I think freedom of speech zones are ridiculous, but I also think they are constitutional.

No they're not, but anyway.

Supreme Court to the rescue.

That only proves that a school != the federal government. If a school wants to suspend a student for talking back to a teacher a school can do so. If the government wants to arrest someone for criticizing the president it can't do so constitutionally. The issue isn't "punishment". The issue is the forum and the entity enforcing the rules. Someone in his or her private home should be able to teach that homosexuality is a sin or that Christians are equivalent "suicide bombers" if that person so desires. Yes as ridiculous as I see your views as being I fully support the right for you to teach them to your children. It's unfortunate that you don't feel the same.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

It is assumed by liberal proponents of gay marriage that the government is denying gay people certain benefits that are available to everyone else. That is not correct. Marriage benefits are only available to one specific group of people; married heterosexuals. They are not available to single people, single mothers, or any other group. Gays are not being singled out for exclusion, they are simply not being included because they do not fit the criteria the government has established to quality for the subsidy.

Single mothers? One of the benefits to marriage is getting to visit your spouse at the hospital. How can that apply to single mothers? They are all, in the same tone, collective rights. They are so being excluded.

 

[jmdrake]

You link is blocked at my work. But wow. How is free speach zones constitutional? Please directly cite the part of the constitution that allows for this.

Same here, but that's because she was running it through a proxy server.

Here's the link.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/firstamendment/bethel.html

 

[angelatc]

No, the judges do.

They must be your judges. Because my judges would never turn into thought police.

Faith in the government vs faith in mankind. For no good reason, either. Socialist policies sent the gays to the ovens in Germany. Apparently it's the Christians that will suffer that fate with the New World Order, eh?

The Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin - merely a lifestyle choice. You think that Christianity is merely a lifestyle choice. It's quite ironic.

I explained why I thought I was right, in that post. I suspect you ignored it though, because "Yes" was an answer enough for you.

I didn't ignore it. I mocked the absurdity of it.

 

[Tdcci]

You link is blocked at my work. But wow. How is free speach zones constitutional? Please directly cite the part of the constitution that allows for this.

There is no explicit allowing for "free speech zones", the only thing it has to say is or abridging the freedom of speech. It is not unconstitutional to regulate free speech to the point where it is decided where the speech occurs, you just can't stop it.

 

[jmdrake]

Single mothers? One of the benefits to marriage is getting to visit your spouse at the hospital. How can that apply to single mothers? They are all, in the same tone, collective rights. They are so being excluded.

Gee I got to visit my uncle in the hospital before he died. We even said a prayer for him. But I'm not his "spouse". And yes he was in intensive care, unconscious and visiting hours were over. This whole "spouse hospital visitation" thing is a red herring wrapped in a straw man. But if someone was really paranoid about that he/she could always designate his/her significant other with power of attorney and get the same hospital decision making rights as a spouse. It's just a matter of filling out the paperwork. But you've got to fill out paperwork to get married too.

 

[angelatc]

Single mothers? One of the benefits to marriage is getting to visit your spouse at the hospital. How can that apply to single mothers? They are all, in the same tone, collective rights. They are so being excluded.

So? Hospitals are private property, and they're for-profit enterprises. Go find and patronize a hospital that accomodates a more liberal approach to visitors.

 

[angelatc]

There is no explicit allowing for "free speech zones", the only thing it has to say is or abridging the freedom of speech. It is not unconstitutional to regulate free speech to the point where it is decided where the speech occurs, you just can't stop it.

Regulation isn't an abridgment? Heh.

Twisted logic, anyone?

 

[unklejman]

It is so a factor. Christian Parents are unaccountable tyrannies. At least the government can be monitored, and if there is abuse going on, the government employees can be fired or switched.

lol at all you guys arguing with Tdcci. Tdcci is obviously a joke account. I mean how can you seriously argue with one who rants on about teaching tolerance then turn right around and call Christian parents, unaccountable tyrannies...

 

[Tdcci]

Socialist policies sent the gays to the ovens in Germany.

No, they didn't. The Government in Nazi Germany did what the churches are doing now, pitting human beings against one another by dividing them into groups ("gays, "jews", "gypsies"). The government could have only done this with the consent of the people. If children are taught from a young age that this is wrong, it cannot happen.

Apparently it's the Christians that will suffer that fate with the New World Order, eh?

One can only dream.

The Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin - merely a lifestyle choice. You think that Christianity is merely a lifestyle choice. It's quite ironic.

I didn't ignore it. I mocked the absurdity of it.

Now I see the irony there. I also see how absurd it is to say that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" with no support from science. Then again, all the church's political positions (abortion and evolution in school comes to mind) defy science.

 

[jmdrake]

There is no explicit allowing for "free speech zones", the only thing it has to say is or abridging the freedom of speech. It is not unconstitutional to regulate free speech to the point where it is decided where the speech occurs, you just can't stop it.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Free speech zones abridge not only the freedom of speech but also the freedom to peaceably assemble.

Note: In order to understand this you have to know what the word abridge means.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge

abridge
One entry found.

1 aarchaic : deprive b: to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>2: to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>3: to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : condense

If you confine free speech to zones you have clearly abridged by the right to speech as well as the right to peaceably assemble.

Regards,

John M. Drake

 

[Tdcci]

So? Hospitals are private property, and they're for-profit enterprises. Go find and patronize a hospital that accomodates a more liberal approach to visitors.

Hospitals can only operate in the U.S. with the government, because they use the land that belongs to the people. As a registered business, they must comply with the laws of the U.S. What you say would only be true if the U.S. were a completely libertarian country, which it is not.

 

[angelatc]

There is no explicit allowing for "free speech zones", the only thing it has to say is or abridging the freedom of speech. It is not unconstitutional to regulate free speech to the point where it is decided where the speech occurs, you just can't stop it.

Tell it to Giuliani. People are allowed to sell books on the streets of New York, even though he desperately tried to send them back into the bookstores and such, where booksellers belonged.

But the Courts ruled that they are allowed to sell books any damned place they want, with no permits or permission, because the First Amendment protects their right to do that.

Same with artists.

But you think that same law says that I can't wave a sign or wear a t-shirt, unless I have a place designated by the State to do that in.

 

[Deborah K]

Tdcci, I've been patiently awaiting a response to my question. Was it overlooked intentionally, or by mistake?