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

[JJpdxpinkpistols]

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.

or a Democrat?

Hmmm...

JJ (who sees a LOT of that perjorative thought process vocalized a lot lately on this board)

 

[beerslurpy]

I think that the real answer is not to sue the state for what they taught your children when you sent them to a government school, but to withdraw them from the school entirely so they arent exposed to whatever the latest socialist education fad is.

Or, barring that, sit down daily with your children and be actively involved in their learning process so that poisonous ideas are addressed early on.

Or send them to private school if you have the money.

 

[Chris Rhines]

I assume all the people complaining about this have removed their children from the government school system, right?

- Chris

 

[Standing Wolf]

I think that the real answer is not to sue the state for what they taught your children when you sent them to a government school, but to withdraw them from the school entirely so they arent exposed to whatever the latest socialist education fad is.

If I'd had children, they would not have attended government schools.

That said™, government schools need to be fully accountable to those who pick up the tab, which is to say: the tax payers.

 

[beerslurpy]

Have you looked at the average taxpayer lately? Our education system is built around churning out more of the same and teaching them that this is a good thing.

The value of "public education" is going to be a tough meme to kill off.

 

[Sindawe]

JJpdxpinkpistols

or a Democrat?

That would be the "evil statist goons", the "ignorant right wing buffoons" would be Republicans.

On children, I concur with what Standing Wolf said above. I have no childen (via forsight and planning on my part), but if I happen to have guardianship of my minor relatives thrust apon me, the will NOT be attending government public schools.

 

[Jeeper]

Education is a LOCAL ISSUE not a Federal one. The federal Constitution simply has nothing to say on the subject of sex education, and that's exactly how it should be.

+1

I think it is funny that people bitch one minute about the fed getting involved in some things and then bitch the next minute about them not getting involved. The Fed has limited powers, education is not within them.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If this were a local matter, not Federal, wouldn't it be proper for the 9th circuit to rule that they don't have jurisdiction? (Sorry, I know "jurisdiction" isn't the right term, but I don't speak legalese.)

The 9th circuit didn't rule that Federal court was the wrong place to settle this question. They ruled that local parents have no right to expect certain treatment from their local schools.

So either of two things must be true:
Either this really is a Federal matter, and the 9th is an appropriate place to settle it, and Federal law applies
OR
This isn't a Federal matter, and the 9th acted incorrectly by not tossing the case out

So the arguement "this isn't a federal matter therefore the 9th did the right thing by ruling against the parents" is false in either premise or conclusion. That dog don't hunt.

 

[Kim]

VOUCHERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It needs to be DEMANDED NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have no children. But I have 3 well raised nieces who live right next door. My sister and her husband have spent the time to raise their children very well. They are well mannered. Do well in school. H Yes they attend church and love it. They are not weird or non social or nieve or any of the other things the left thinks of children raised as they have been. But, I can guarantee IF something like this had been done at their school the whole town would been in a uproar. It is hard to let children be children and enjoy the only innocent time of their lives from things that they should not have to worry about. If anyone had asked these sorts of questions at the age they were asked there would be no way any court could give back to them what had been taken away.

 

[dpesec]

I've reviewed the federal Constitution and for once the 9th got it right.
You people who complain about the overreaching of federal courts need to remember--IF IT AIN'T ON THE PAGE, IT AIN'T ON THE STAGE. You can't just look to your gut feelings about what should or should not be a fundamental right. We've already seen what happens when courts go down that road and it's not pretty.

What about the 9th and 10th ammendments? You know the pesky ones that say just because it's not listed here doesn't mean the right doesn't exist, but if it does it's the peoples?
And the 10th which says if it's isn't listed the powers rever to the people and the states?
Wouldn't these indicate this area belongs at least to the states, and at most the peoples?

 

[NickEllis]

If this were a local matter, not Federal, wouldn't it be proper for the 9th circuit to rule that they don't have jurisdiction? (Sorry, I know "jurisdiction" isn't the right term, but I don't speak legalese.)

The 9th circuit didn't rule that Federal court was the wrong place to settle this question. They ruled that local parents have no right to expect certain treatment from their local schools.

So either of two things must be true:
Either this really is a Federal matter, and the 9th is an appropriate place to settle it, and Federal law applies
OR
This isn't a Federal matter, and the 9th acted incorrectly by not tossing the case out

So the arguement "this isn't a federal matter therefore the 9th did the right thing by ruling against the parents" is false in either premise or conclusion. That dog don't hunt.

I think this is a very good point. Many people are arguing here that the court was correct in making this ruling, because they didn't have the authority to.... make a ruling? Now that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, does it? In fact, the court did not simply state "oh, we don't have the authority or juristiction to rule on this" rather they clearly ruled that "the parents have no authority or right to regulate educational content for dependents," and thereby set precident. Many on this board, while seeking to defend a limit on federalcourt.gov's reach, are in fact playing into their hands by allowing such a ruling.

One might also ask what recourse one has when "more clearly" offensive material (somehow, this case isn't being seen so by many on this board) is given to 1st and 3rd graders; does one not have the right to address this in court, even on the local level? Given that the public school system is clearly a government entity, the suit should be handled on a government level, and regulated therein.

 

[AZRickD]

This is why the government "public" school monopoly is so bad. All of these arguments would be null if there were private schools in the majority. There would be no mass court cases suing to keep Halloween out of school due to separation of church and state, et al.

That public schools are run by people who want to pump stupidity into the minds of our children, and the courts say we have no redress is an abomination, be it federal, state or municipal.

No protections buy the federal courts? Isn't what they said in US v Cruikshank? I'm forced to wonder about all those federal dollars pumped into government schools as well.

Rick

 

[antarti]

First off, let me say I agree with HTG that they had no right to even hear the case, but since they did...

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.

And if they followed that logic, why not take a case back to the 9th arguing against any Federal involvement, resources, or monies used in the public education system in the several states?

Let's get that fedgov slate wiped clean while the iron is hot.

 

[Deavis]

Cosmoline,

If the parents do as you suggest and pull their kids from the school due to a lack of regard for the indocrination, I mean curriculum, should they then be forced to pay for it? Furthermore, if the parents are paying for this education, why don't they have a say in it? I buy shares in a company, I get at least a flippant notice about a voting issue, why don't parents get the same for their school? Is it that the government doesn't have to ask its shareholders what they think and the management of the public education subsidiary is beyond firing by the shareholders?

 

[zerosignal]

Cosmoline, I hate to disagree with you about your Constitution argument, but you're completely wrong.

Just because the constitution does not enumerate "sex education" as a right of parents only, does not mean that it doesn't belong to the parents.

Tha fact is, that unless the Constitution specifically gives the job of "sex education" to the Federal government, it is automatically reserved as a right of the people. Any right not assigned to the government is intrinsically a right of the people, and the Constitution provides no basis for the existance of the Department of Education.


**EDIT* After reading your further posts, I see your point about this not being a federal constitutional issue. You said that this issue needs to be taken up on the local and state level. The problem with that is, the Department of Education is a federal office, and has a rediculous amount of influence on most state education boards. Granted, some more conservative states like Texas tend to ignore the DOE and run things their own way, but that isn't true for most states. The problem here isn't that this "should be" a federal issue, but that our government has MADE it a federal issue by the creation of the DOE.

 

[GigaBuist]

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

Thanks, ATK, because that's the qusetion that's been rolling about in my mind.

What is the educational value of asking a 6 year old if they play with their willy? I can see a parent asking that question, but not the State.

What's the educational value of asking a kid if they want to play with somebody else's private parts? If I walked into a school and asked a 6 year old that I'd wager nobody would have issue with me being hung from a rope. I'd have no issue with that notion either.

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.

That's exactly how I read it. Trollling for more child abuse cases, gotta make work for CPS workers and all that. Education can not be the goal here.

 

[Fletchette]

I looked at some of the questions they were giving elementary school children and I have a problem with them as well. Asking these sorts of questions is bound to raise issues in the minds of children that they simply are not ready to deal with yet. These sorts of questions will screw up children who are presently normal.

Yes, these are issues that exist and children will have to deal with them eventually. But there is a time and place for everything. For example, what if a teacher started asking elementary-school children very specific questions about violence? Ex: "Do you ever feel inclined to kill your classmates?" Yes, violence exists in society (and it is justified in many cases) but you should not ask little kids to tackle the ethical issues associated with these subjects. They need to mature.

The Ninth Circuit Court is out of control. They wouldn't recognize the Constitution if it was shoved down their throats (hmmm.) They erred in their opinion right up front with their argument that there is "no fundamental
right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding
sexual matters to their children." First off, I disagree with this assertion - parents DO have the right to teach their kids exclusively. However, this statement also insinuated that IF parents do not have this right, THEN the government does. This is a bogus assumption.

This type of thinking is coming from people like Hillary. They proclaim to be interested in "child rights" but have their logic screwed up. Children have only limited rights (like right to life). Children cannot speak freely (their parents can punish them for swearing), they cannot choose their religion (parents may force children into religious teachings) and they cannot bear arms (and if Hillary has her way, neither will adults!).

In exchange for the lack of rights, children do not have the responsibilities of adults (children cannot be prosecuted for crimes). The rights and responsibilities are exchanged as the children become adults. This is a fundamental foundation of Western civilization.

Socialists like Hillary and the 9th want to screw all this up. There is no logic to their desires. They want to prosecute children for crimes and treat adults as children. Destroying the foundation of civilization is a recipe for the destruction of civilization.

 

[Ironbarr]

Appeals Court Declares Parenthood Unconstitutional, Group Says

By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
November 03, 2005
..............................................................

(CNSNews.com) - A new ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is prompting cries of judicial activism.

On Wednesday the court dismissed a lawsuit brought by California parents who were outraged over a sex survey given to public school students in the first, third and fifth grades.

Among other things, the survey administered by the Palmdale School District asked children if they ever thought about having sex or touching other people's "private parts" and whether they could "stop thinking about having sex."

The parents argued that they -- not the public schools -- have the sole right "to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex."

But on Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit dismissed the case, saying, "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children...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."

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing for the panel, said "no such specific right can be found in the deep roots of the nation's history and tradition or implied in the concept of ordered liberty."

Full story of the 11/02/2005 opinion http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200511/CUL20051103b.html

..............................................................................

So, does this open the door for NAMBLA and other assorted people to introduce education to our young'uns?

No, it doesn't open a door; it DOES open major flood gates to that end. How can we have pederasty, pedophilia, and other sex-crime-against-children laws that stick?

Whether this is judicial activism or an accurate reflection of what is, or is not, a constitutional right, I suggest that congress must find a way - in all subjects - to pass law that will survive judicial fiat, for if the Ninth's edict were to survive nationally, vox populi will settle the matter... one way or another. NO ONE MESSES WITH MY KIDS will, IMHO, be the cause célèbre for the 21st century.

The text of the Ninth Circuit Appelate Court's opinion is not yet on their web site. Check later at http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/bap.nsf/Memos by Date?OpenView.

.

 

[El Rojo]

I sort of am in awe that all of you so called libertarians are not following Cosmoline more on this one. You are complaining about how the court is allowing this...yada...yada...yada. What you should realize is that only six parents sued. Why were more parents not sueing? Maybe the other parents didn't care and accept this. That is their right.

Most importantly, you all seem to blaming the court for this. If such a thing were to come to your kids school, what would you do? Sue the school? This is foolish and most certainly not an act of liberty and freedom. What you should do is challenge the school board and change the school's policy locally. If you don't like the job the school board is doing, challenge them. When only six parents step forward in a district as large as Palmdale's, then it appears the silence by the rest of the parents means they want their kids to be asked this question. When that happens, it is time to take your kids out of public school.

Sorry, but the stupid things Californians ask for they deserve to get. As has been pointed out, if parents can dictate what teachers teach due to lawsuits, how long until they challenge the right of the state to teach conservatism, Christianity, the Regan Administration, or anything else offensive to liberals? This ruling could go both ways.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? You are so conservative and libertarian until it suits your needs. Anyone who doesn't place the blame squarely on the school board must like big government and we are in big trouble. No wonder the feds get bigger and bigger. :banghead:

 

[Fletchette]

I sort of am in awe that all of you so called libertarians are not following Cosmoline more on this one. You are complaining about how the court is allowing this...yada...yada...yada. What you should realize is that only six parents sued. Why were more parents not sueing? Maybe the other parents didn't care and accept this. That is their right.

Most importantly, you all seem to blaming the court for this. If such a thing were to come to your kids school, what would you do? Sue the school? This is foolish and most certainly not an act of liberty and freedom. What you should do is challenge the school board and change the school's policy locally. If you don't like the job the school board is doing, challenge them. When only six parents step forward in a district as large as Palmdale's, then it appears the silence by the rest of the parents means they want their kids to be asked this question. When that happens, it is time to take your kids out of public school.

Sorry, but the stupid things Californians ask for they deserve to get. As has been pointed out, if parents can dictate what teachers teach due to lawsuits, how long until they challenge the right of the state to teach conservatism, Christianity, the Regan Administration, or anything else offensive to liberals? This ruling could go both ways.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? You are so conservative and libertarian until it suits your needs. Anyone who doesn't place the blame squarely on the school board must like big government and we are in big trouble. No wonder the feds get bigger and bigger. :banghead:

As one of those so-called libertarians, I'll respond.

First, the Ninth has made many, many unConstitutional rulings, so it is almost an unconcious reaction to take the opposing side of one of their opinions.

Second, I understand and respect Cosmoline's arguement that the parents should not have sued, but instead they should take it up with the elected local school board. On the surface, this is reasonable, but in reality many of us here simply do not believe that the local school board would a) listen to the parents, and b) consult them before the damage is done. In the process, the Ninth now has established a precident that the government can teach such things to children of a very young age (ie. we are not talking high school here, were talking First Graders) despite the wishes of the parents.

I don't see a conflict with libertarians not wanting the government giving themselves more power, do you?

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'll bet you twenty bucks that these parents went before the school board with their complaints first. You don't file expensive, lengthy, stressful lawsuits just for kicks. You do it because that's the last resort - the school board didn't care, the local politicians didn't care, and the local courts ruled that you have no reason to expect the school boards and city officials to care.

Our children are being filled with values we despise. Our publicly funded teachers are stealing the innocence from our children. The local political climate says that our own values are secondary to their desire to indoctrinate a politically correct, progressive, "anything goes, nothing is wrong" hedonism among not only their children but ours also.

And woe be to those of us whose values are religously based.

Why shouldn't we stand up and say something about this? Yes, go to the school board first. But don't be surprised when they blow you off. "I'm a professional, I know more about raising your kids than you do" isn't an attitude held exclusively by the teachers. It's just as common amongst school broards, social workers, and local city fathers.

All this guff about tolerance, diversity, different perspectives is utter BS. They don't want diversity, they want everyone to look just like them. They don't want tolerance, they want you to comform to their whims. They don't want to allow other perspectives, they want you to accept their own perspective as the one and only. They want to destroy our way of life.

And the 9th circuit just gave them carte blanche.

I'd sue too. In any court that would listen. There comes a point when proper legal procedure takes a back seat to the well being of those you love most.

 

[Cosmoline]

Cosmoline, I hate to disagree with you about your Constitution argument, but you're completely wrong.

Just because the constitution does not enumerate "sex education" as a right of parents only, does not mean that it doesn't belong to the parents.

Tha fact is, that unless the Constitution specifically gives the job of "sex education" to the Federal government, it is automatically reserved as a right of the people. Any right not assigned to the government is intrinsically a right of the people, and the Constitution provides no basis for the existance of the Department of Education.


**EDIT* After reading your further posts, I see your point about this not being a federal constitutional issue. You said that this issue needs to be taken up on the local and state level. The problem with that is, the Department of Education is a federal office, and has a rediculous amount of influence on most state education boards. Granted, some more conservative states like Texas tend to ignore the DOE and run things their own way, but that isn't true for most states. The problem here isn't that this "should be" a federal issue, but that our government has MADE it a federal issue by the creation of the DOE.

I agree about the Dept. of Education. It's extraconstitutional and should be taken out, shot and butchered for hog slop. If the parents had a beef with a Dept. of Education federal policy, of course they would be within their rights to sue in federal court. But their challenge was not to any federal policy, but rather involved personal objections they had to a school board's local decision on how to teach sex ed.

So there's nothing to tie any of this to the federal government.

 

[Cosmoline]

Second, I understand and respect Cosmoline's arguement that the parents should not have sued, but instead they should take it up with the elected local school board. On the surface, this is reasonable, but in reality many of us here simply do not believe that the local school board would a) listen to the parents, and b) consult them before the damage is done.

THEN THE SCHOOL BOARD SHOULD BE OVERTHROWN AND REPLACED IN THE NEXT ELECTION!! What you are demanding is that an UNELECTED, LIBERAL FEDERAL COURT come in and substitute its own decision for the decision of the school board. This is exactly the sort of nonsense that is properly condemned when it comes to the flag or other issues. But you can't have it both ways! If the feds can come in and intrude on local school board decision making in your favor, they can also decide issues against you--and you stand a MUCH better chance of changing the school board than shifting an unelected Art. III judge with life tenure and a bad attitude.

 

[Jeff]

The 9th circuit's ruling is unconstitutional on a state level, federal level, or what have you. Please read all state constitutional matters concerning the separation of church and state.

Any curricula taught or presented in a public school-- other than the presentation of fictional prose or poetry-- must be objective material designed for the purpose of learning-- i.e the acquisition of knowledge.

Any material that does not comply to those criteria is simply religion.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:

religion def: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Anything not complying to the principles or constructs of objective learning is based on religion, or a set of beliefs or attitudes. Such curricula is the subject of dogma or a specific agenda not relating to objective knowledge.

The public school system is not in the business of teaching dogma, and it is strictly unconstitutional to advance one ideological agenda over another.

ARTICLE 16, SECTION 5 OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION PUBLIC FUNDS; AID OF RELIGIOUS PURPOSES OR INSTITUTIONS SEC. 5:

Neither the Legislature, nor any county, city and county, township, school district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation, or pay from any public fund whatever, or grant anything to or aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state or any city, city and county, town or other municipal corporation for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever, provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the Legislature grating aid pursuant to section 3 of Article XVI.(Adopted November 5, 1974)

 

[Cosmoline]

You will look hard and long and NEVER find a comparable provision in the US Constitution. THIS SUIT IS IN THE WRONG COURT. If the parents think the board is violating California state law, they should be suing in the California state courts, NOT in the federal court. This is not nit-picking, it's the single most important principle underlying the US as a nation. If we look to the feds to sort out every supposed wrong or violation of our rights, we will degenerate into a Parliamentary commonwealth and the nation will collapse in short order. It's astonishing and depressing to see how many people on THIS VERY FORUM don't have the first clue about federalism. They go running to the feds at the drop of a hat, the same as the left wingers. It's a bad business, not to understand something so fundamental about one's own nation.