9th Circuit: Parents have no rights.....

[SteveS]

Having not read this case, I can't comment on the particulars, but there are a whole line of cases in the federal system that deal with "parental rights." Some deal with education, and some deal with removal of children due to abuse or neglect. I believe that many of these cases state that a parent has "liberty" interest in how their child is raised, and that the state cannot deprive you of a liberty interest without due process. I can't tell you how this applies to this case, because I don't know that arguments that were raised.

I agree with the poster that said people should be involved with schools. I have been to school board meetings and, most of the time, the board outnumbers the observers. That being said, maybe the parents in this case did exhaust all other options before going to court. The school should have anticipated this type of response.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

EDIT: what's the point?

I don't insist that others hold to my moral values. But everyone else seems to think that it's OK for them to impose their morals on me and mine. So what's the point in discussing it?

SCHOOL VOUCHERS!!!!

 

[JustSomeDude]

edit

The 9th Circus Court of Appeals ruled yesterday ...

There, fixed it for ya! This kind of nonsense is why my children will be homeschooled. (My daughter is only 7mo. old) And why we will not be moving to CA.

 

[atk]

Just because I'm curious, and I don't have a good answer at the moment:

Why is this looked as the right of the parents, rather than a power available to the school?

The school is a government entity, and should be subject to the same restrictions as the government. What grants the school the power to do this? Is there any argument that the questionaire is appropriate (particularly if it's true that the questionaire was given to first grade students)?

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Just because I'm curious, and I don't have a good answer at the moment:

Why is this looked as the right of the parents, rather than a power available to the school?

The school is a government entity, and should be subject to the same restrictions as the government. What grants the school the power to do this? Is there any argument that the questionaire is appropriate (particularly if it's true that the questionaire was given to first grade students)?

Nothing grants the schools/government the authority to do this. That's why I take issue to it.

No part of the federal constitution grants authority to government to indoctrinate children against the will of their parents. I haven't read the Cali constitution, but I really doubt it grants that power either. But perhaps Cosmoline has, and can quote the section that says Cali has the power to do this???

But hey, it's a local matter, right? Federal rights (no prohibition of religion) don't apply. Just like the 2nd ammendment doesnt apply to local municipalities like Chicago or states like California.

 

[Cosmoline]

Goose and gander my muscular buttocks. It's a double standard that says Christian values are BAD BAD BAD. Just what you'd expect from the 9th circuit.

If this isn't a federal/constitutional matter, than neither is any sort of local prohibition on firearms rights. If the 1st or 10th ammendments don't apply to local matters in california, than neither does the 2nd ammendment apply in DC or Chicago or California. The 4th through 8th wouldn't apply at all (mostly), because most criminal trials/investigations take place locally. This sort of reasoning is absurd.

I agree with you that it's a double standard. But the solution is not to welcome MORE federal intrusion, it's to push back the intrusion that's already taken place. This opinion, judged on its own merits, was 100% CORRECT.

You don't seem to understand the role of the federal government or the 10th Amendment. The 10th deals with the rights of the federal governmnet vis a vis the states. It does not give the feds authority to intervene in a dispute about sex ed between a parent and a school board. Nor should it.

Your other reference is to the 14th Amendment, which is what makes the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. To say that the 14th makes the 10th applicable to the states is a non sequitur. The 10th is an amendment about what limits the federal government in its relations with the states. Outside that context it doesn't have any meaning. It's one of the key elements of federalism and indeed if the 9th had intervened in this case it would be VIOLATING the 10th amendment because education is supposed to be one of the powers reserved to the several states.

 

[Bubbles]

More info at: School’s Queries About Sexual Feelings Not a Privacy Violation

The survey was given to first , third, and fifth graders.

I'm joining HSLDA and home-schooling my child when the time comes.

 

[Cosmoline]

Nothing grants the schools/government the authority to do this. That's why I take issue to it.

No part of the federal constitution grants authority to government to indoctrinate children against the will of their parents. I haven't read the Cali constitution, but I really doubt it grants that power either. But perhaps Cosmoline has, and can quote the section that says Cali has the power to do this???

But hey, it's a local matter, right? Federal constitution doesn't apply. Just like the 2nd ammendment doesnt apply to local municipalities like Chicago or states like California.

I'm quite positive if you look at the state constitution and code you will indeed find provisions which grant the power to set up schools and teach children. You're looking to the wrong constitution here.

PS--yes indeed it took me two seconds on Google to find Article 9 of the California Constitution:

ARTICLE 9 EDUCATION

SECTION 1. A general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence being
essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the
people, the Legislature shall encourage by all suitable means the
promotion of intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural
improvement.

SEC. 2. A Superintendent of Public Instruction shall be elected by
the qualified electors of the State at each gubernatorial election.
The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall enter upon the duties
of the office on the first Monday after the first day of January next
succeeding each gubernatorial election. No Superintendent of Public
Instruction may serve more than 2 terms.

SEC. 2.1. The State Board of Education, on nomination of the
Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall appoint one Deputy
Superintendent of Public Instruction and three Associate
Superintendents of Public Instruction who shall be exempt from state
civil service and whose terms of office shall be four years.
This section shall not be construed as prohibiting the
appointment, in accordance with law, of additional Associate
Superintendents of Public Instruction subject to state civil service.

Etc. etc. etc.

 

[Satch]

9th circuit

The 9th has the most over turned rulings in the country----- thank God.

 

[Cosmoline]

But hey, it's a local matter, right? Federal rights (no prohibition of religion) don't apply. Just like the 2nd ammendment doesnt apply to local municipalities like Chicago or states like California.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

You are confusing the 10th and the 14th. The 2nd grants an individual right. It should be applicable to the states via the 14th, just like the 1st and the other amendments granting an individual right. The 10th spells out a basic principle of FEDERALISM--the relationship between the states and the federal government. All powers not specifically given to the feds in the Constitution INCLUDING EDUCATION are held by the state governments.

 

[Cosmoline]

The 9th has the most over turned rulings in the country----- thank God.

So you WANT the federal courts to be the aribters of any dispute that arises between parents and a school board about how their kids should be taught? That's utter madness.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Indeed, most state constitutions call for public education. My own does, and every other state constitution I've seen does as well.

The issue isn't one of teaching. It's one of forcing children to accept moral values that conradict their religion, and possibly compromising their eternal salvation. The schools/government have a right to teach, but not to stand in the way of one's religion.

In the past, societies have executed Christians in all sorts of terrible ways, simply because they held true to their beleifs. I would have thought that we're more enlightened than this.

Of course, these kids won't be killed for their beliefs, only flunked. I suppose that's progress.


(Why is it so hard for folks to get along? Why can't they make this sort of moral teaching optional? If you wanna teach your kids one set of values, you do so. If I wanna teach mine another set, I do so. Why does one side have to force their values on all of us?)

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Hmm... I guess the question comes down to this...

Which takes precedent:
A state's constitutional right/power to teach morals, including anti-Christian values to Christians
or
The Christians' 1st Ammendmend right to hold Christian values?

You could probably work the arguement either way. There seems to be a clear contradiction (i.e. both sides can stand on their rights, and both sides can point to why the other is wrong).

I've heard the argument that public schools should be abolished for precisely this sort of reason. Doing so would violate the state's constitutional obligation to provide public education. But maybe that's the lesser of two evils, and maybe that's the best we can hope for.

School vouchers would solve this problem. Let's end the government monopoly on public education!

 

[Beethoven]

The three-judge panel of the full court further ruled that parents "have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students."[/u]

Y'all seem to have glossed over this part.

It seems the court is saying that parents have no say in what their children will be taught while in public schools.

And you STILL SUPPORT THIS????

 

[Sindawe]

You are confusing the 10th and the 14th. The 2nd grants an individual right. It should be applicable to the states via the 14th, just like the 1st and the other amendments granting an individual right.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

The amendments noted, and indeed the entire U.S. Constitution grant NOTHING. The documents RECOGNIZE rights that are inherent to each individual, and guarantee those rights by baring the federal government from even touching those rights. If the RKBA is granted by the 2nd, then repeal of the 2nd removes the RKBA. Is this the position you wish to support?

(Why is it so hard for folks to get along? Why can't they make this sort of moral teaching optional? If you wanna teach your kids one set of values, you do so. If I wanna teach mine another set, I do so. Why does one side have to force their values on all of us?)

I suspect its due to human nature and the drive/desire/conviction that "MY WAY OF THINKING IS THE ONLY CORRECT ONE" and that everybody who thinks differently is an ignorant right wing buffoon/evil statist goon.

 

[Cosmoline]

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

The amendments noted, and indeed the entire U.S. Constitution grant NOTHING. The documents RECOGNIZE rights that are inherent to each individual, and guarantee those rights by baring the federal government from even touching those rights. If the RKBA is granted by the 2nd, then repeal of the 2nd removes the RKBA. Is this the position you wish to support? I suspect its due to human nature and the drive/desire/conviction that "MY WAY OF THINKING IS THE ONLY CORRECT ONE" and that everybody who thinks differently is an ignorant right wing buffoon/evil statist goon.

The main purpose of the Federal Constitution is to explain what rights the states are allowing the federal government to have and what rights they are retaining. You are also correct that the main purpose of the Bill of Rights is to lay down limits beyond which the federal government is not supposed to go. But nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government the right to make a ruling in this case. What powers the parents have against the school board are a matter of state law only.

 

[Cosmoline]

Y'all seem to have glossed over this part.

It seems the court is saying that parents have no say in what their children will be taught while in public schools.

And you STILL SUPPORT THIS????

I support the holding that the federal government does not recognize or enforce any rights of the parents over the school board in the realm of education. It's not the job of the feds to make those decisions.

Any complaints you have should be directed at the government of the state and its courts, not to the 9th circuit.

I for one do not want the federal court system digging around and inventing new rights for parents or anyone else. They've done far too much of that already.

 

[longeyes]

The State owns your kids' minds?--you got a problem with that?

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Get Peeved later, get Paid Now!!!

It is the only language Beauracrats(sad to say that public shcools have turned into just that, bearuacracies ) understand...And yes, Cosmoline is correct that this is not even a Constitutional issue...You put your child in public shcool, and take your chances...This is not a Federal issue at all, and the SCOTUS has no dog in this fight, or shouldn't atleast. This is what Civil court is for...Take the entire administration to the cleaners in Civil court...That way the money comes from PRIVATE HANDS and you get some culpability hopefully(proabably easily done with a list, a phone call, and a news station)...Then get the idiot that thought asking 1-3 graders sexually explicit questions, fired and strung up on a public street corner with buckets of tar and feathers just ever so close(add instructions if needed, it is the 9th circus after all)...

PS-This is sad but almost to be expected over there with so much emphasis placed on the braing washin....er I mean education of our youth, the earlier you start the better Next they will have surveys about BTK feelings.... I mean seriously(no flame intended) but could you see someone pulling this crap in Texas?...Yeah, neither could I...

 

[Molon Labe]

Why give a crap what these judges think?

If you give a crap, then you're implying their ruling somehow matters.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It's the 9th Circuit. What did you expect?

"The 9th Circuit goes off the deep end. In other news, gravity causes apples to fall, and water causes things to get wet."

x 2

Except you misspelled "circus"

 

[atk]

Again, I don't have the inclination to get the facts, so I ask the following:



It seems that the state claims (via the state constitution) claims the power to educate its citizens.

The next question is: what educational purpose does this questionaire fulfill?



And, to throw gasoline on a fire: The questionaire posted in this thread looks more to me like it's trying to find children who have been abused, not educate someone. I'd be interested if someone else reads that differently.

 

[Molon Labe]

The 2nd grants an individual right.

So what you're saying is that, if the Second Amendment didn't exist, we would not be "granted" the right to keep and bear arms, and therefore we would not have the right to keep and bear arms?

Silly me, I thought the Second Amendment simply recognized we have a right to keep and bear arms, and prohibited the government from infringing on this right.

 

[Cosmoline]

Point taken, but the federal Constitution still has nothing to do with sex education. You need to complain to the school board and if they don't do what you want, set up an organization to oust them. It's been done countless times across the country when school boards get too far afield.

 

[Zundfolge]

My wife and I can't have children (at least not without significant medical intervention) ... I used to see this as a curse, but on an almost daily basis I read or hear something that makes me think maybe God was looking out for us by making us barren.