Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court

Originally Posted by Watts

So what you're saying is that parents have no fundamental right to raise or nurture a child as they see fit. Is that not the definition of a parent?

No, I'm saying that it's not a fundamental right. It is a DERIVATIVE right, something that CAN be taken away (unlike the right to life, for example). It is a privelage set forth by our government, and as such they can take it away. If they wanted to imprison the parents for being bad parents, now that would be something else entirely. But saying that the parents have a fundamental right to influence the public education of not only THEIR child, but also implying that they have the right to influence OTHER children is bull. And you know something? If they DON'T like what the public school's doing, then they can pull them out and do something else. I should know, I was homeschooled for three years and then put into a private school for another three.

Quote:

You're essentially talking about mathematics, I'm talking about legal precedents. At any point in time this ruling could be used as justification to deny a parent the right to raise their child in any manner that they deem to be prudent.

Bullshit. I was talking about legal precedents too. There is no such thing as a necessary connection. The sun rising? Wow, that happens every day! It'll happen tomorrow! *tomorrow comes* Oh noes, the sun's light bulb burnt out. So much for the sun rising.

In the typical fashion of left wing activist judges, the constitution is viewed here as some sort of a big basket that holds all of our rights, and if a right isn't in there then you obviously don't have it. The right to educate our children, to inform them on moral matters, to introduce them to sexual matters when they are ready is a fundamental human right. Its a natural right. The court says that parents no longer have this right exclusively. The state can now supersede our wishes in these matters. The ruling is open enough that the state, should it chose to, can go beyond these matters and supersede parental authority wherever it deems fit.

Originally Posted by Wesker

Its a natural right.

What the fuck is a natural right? Do you mean unalienable? Or perhaps you're trying to tell me you drink Natural Light?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

But saying that the parents have a fundamental right to influence the public education of not only THEIR child, but also implying that they have the right to influence OTHER children is bull. And you know something? If they DON'T like what the public school's doing, then they can pull them out and do something else.

Isn't that what the parents that didn't want 'intelligent design' taught in their schools did? They took it to court and challenged it legally, and immediately there after kicked the whole school board out of office. What if the state were to take a very liberal interpetation of this ruling and say that "in this case, parents do not have the privilage of deciding what is getting taught in the science classroom?".

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Bullshit. I was talking about legal precedents too. [b]There is no such thing as a necessary connection.

I disagree. There is a necessary connection between morality and law. Law is required to comform to society's standards of the time. Otherwise law has no legitmacy. There is no such "probability" of this ruling not being used. Chances are widely in it's favor that it will be cited at a later date. It'll be up to whoever cites it to misconstrued it in any matter they deem necessary to win their case.

Originally Posted by Wesker

In the typical fashion of left wing activist judges,

Gah. Did you really need to make this political? A independent judiciary is the only thing that keeps our freedoms intact. They can only interpet what's basically written in the Constitution. That doesn't mean they had to so vague, but that doesn't make them a bunch of bleeding heart liberals either.

Originally Posted by Wesker

The court says that parents no longer have this right exclusively. The state can now supersede our wishes in these matters. The ruling is open enough that the state, should it chose to, can go beyond these matters and supersede parental authority wherever it deems fit.

Yes, and no. The court was more or less vague in this ruling. Which means it could be worked in favor of parental educational rights, and it could also be used in opposition of parental educational rights. That's the law and lawyers at work.

[qoute]In the typical fashion of left wing activist judges[/qoute]

No this is the tactic of conservative constitutional absolutes. The constructional liberal’s are the ones who want too add in new rights “fundamental rights to the constitutional ”: gay marriage, abortion etc. This idea of an exclusive right to control the follow of information is what reeks of activism. Yes, Wesker you are the activist not the judge, you see judicial activism means someone who’s decisions “results in case law which does not follow precedent or which exceeds the scope of established law”. There is no case law to support your notion and plenty to go against it.
Obeying clear establishment precedent isn’t activism it’s called Stare decisis.

Quote:

The right to educate our children, to inform them on moral matters, to introduce them to sexual matters when they are ready is a fundamental human right. Its a natural right.

No it is not a fundamental right or nature. Your confusing being the ultimate authority over a child concerning private family matters with being the exclusive conduit of it information.

Ever here the phrase “it takes a village”? Humans are tribal creatures. Parents have never been the exclusive source of information in any society. When you take a child to a priest, teacher, doctor, tribal shaman, whoever you are allowing the induction and indeed encouraging the giving of information by another party. Parents are not the exclusively source of information, never have, never will be, never should be (that would require physiological damaging isolation from society till the age of 18). How can you have a natural right to some thing, which is contrary to human nature?

The only question before the judges over 60 years ago that decided this, is basically does the fact that parents aren’t the exclusive conduit of knowledge extend to the government thereby allowing the state to act as a conduit of information. Yes it does other wise we would not be able to establish public schools.

Stop dodging the question sending your kids to school means you are no longer the exclusive source of information, if introduction of information to children by a party other then there parents is unconstitutional all public must be shut down. Since your so hung up on sex let do an example based on that: Do you believe all sex ed course, as well an sex related public service announcements targeted at teens are unconstitutional. Because that exactly what would happen. After all sex ed by definition is introducing sexual information to minors. And no the age (1st grader vs. highschooler) doesn’t make a difference there is no 14 amendment for parents of elementary aged children and then a separate 14 amendments for parents of teenagers. If it is a 14 amendments right, then the school system would be denied the right to give sexual information to any student regardless of age. And again stop avoiding the question

Quote:

The ruling is open enough that the state, should it chose to, can go beyond these matters and supersede parental authority wherever it deems fit.

Wesker read again you don’t get. The state is not superceding you at all with this decision the decision is still yours. You chose to let some else handle it if you are displease with how they did the job you told them doesn’t not mean they supercede it you it actually means they obeyed you. The parents gave the state permission to introduce information. I’ll repeat it again: You the parent chose to let the government give the curriculum it thought was best. You chose to do so, the government did not force you in to it. If you not happy with the result, it you fault for sending them there.

Furthermore your confusing give information with supercede, giving information does not supercede you authority as a parent. Using your logic the rights of all fundamentals are being by government scientist giving information on evolution. This decision persevere the state right to decimate information to citizens of minor statutes. It does not at any point give the state power to supercede you.

Superseding you would be talking away your right to home or private school.
Superceding you would be forcing public and home schooled children to take the survey.
This doesn’t give precedent for any of these:

“In doing so, we do not quarrel with
the parents’ right to inform and advise their children about the
subject of sex as they see fit.
……………………
We conclude [b]ONLY[b] that the par-
ents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the
public schools from providing information on that subject to
their students in any forum or manner they select.”

Guess you missed the word only in there? Before you bring it up the slippery slope, unless you can show a relationship between each step you committing a logical fallacy. A person's later misuse of this ruleing does not count as an ruleing can be misused.

You advise as you see fit and so dose the school. You don’t like what the school is doing you excise you right to not use the public school system. What exactly is wrong with this?

You entire theist statement is that the decision give statement more rights then the parents do. This is false the decision explicit says parents are first. The government has less right then the parent period. The decision holds that the government has a right to give minors information regarding sex in public schools, nothing more.

Dan, I agree with most of what you said. A parent does delegate the state the authority to educate their child when the opt to send their child to public school. However, that delegation comes with certain expectations. The parent sare probably given a copy of the ciricullum for the grade years that their child is attending. The expectation is that the child will be taught in accordance with the ciricullum. The parents had no reasonable expectation that their first graders would be exposed to sexual matters.

Another area of concern is the court decision regarding parents privacy rights. The court said that the parents have no expectation of privacy in this matter. This seems to set a dangerous precedent in that just what can the state inquire of the children about concerning the private lives of the children or their parents?

Originally Posted by Watts

Isn't that what the parents that didn't want 'intelligent design' taught in their schools did? They took it to court and challenged it legally, and immediately there after kicked the whole school board out of office. What if the state were to take a very liberal interpetation of this ruling and say that "in this case, parents do not have the privilage of deciding what is getting taught in the science classroom?".

Again, I was talking about a fundamental right. Clearly you need a short lesson in philosophy.

There are two kinds of rights. There are fundamental rights, which include the right to life, the right to liberty, bodily autonomy, etc. These rights are natural (we have them because we are who we are and for no other reason), universal (they apply to everybody), and inalienable (they cannot be surrendered or taken away).

The other kind of rights are derivative rights, which are essentially extensions of fundamental rights, the difference being that they are NOT natural, universal, and inalienable. Take the 1st Amendment. If times were right, the sheep were guided well enough, and enough crying was done, we could have a constitutional amendment that annuls the 1st amendment, and poof! No freedom of religion. Or freedom of speech, or the freedoms that we take for granted.

The right to influence your child's education is a derivative right, not a fundamental right.

Quote:

I disagree. There is a necessary connection between morality and law. Law is required to comform to society's standards of the time. Otherwise law has no legitmacy.

O RLY?

EDIT: Oh, and if that's not enough, then on the top of my head, I can recall several of these laws:

It is illegal to whistle underwater.
In Texas, you may not carry wire cutters in your pocket.
If two trains meet on a track, then both must stop and neither may continue until the other has passed.

And you claim that laws have to follow society's standards?

So this court order decides that parents have no right on what they are taught and stuff?

Partially, I stand neutral, as both sides stand at a position where the right delegated or borned with can be abused. In which the parents oppose the teaching of perhaps theories of evolution (I'm out of topic).

Then again, I feel that since the parents indirectly 'delegated' the task of providing education to the centralized government, perhaps that the government is accountable for what it teaches towards their kids.

Then, comes it the fact that there are so many parents, so many differing opinions. Perhaps parents should start home-schooling and abandon the idea of state-sponsored education entirely. (sarcasm)

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Again, I was talking about a fundamental right. Clearly you need a short lesson in philosophy.

There are two kinds of rights. There are fundamental rights, which include the right to life, the right to liberty, bodily autonomy, etc. These rights are natural (we have them because we are who we are and for no other reason), universal (they apply to everybody), and inalienable (they cannot be surrendered or taken away).

The right to influence your child's education is a derivative right, not a fundamental right.

You're not going to change what I think nor am I going to change what you think.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Take the 1st Amendment. If times were right, the sheep were guided well enough, and enough crying was done, we could have a constitutional amendment that annuls the 1st amendment, and poof! No freedom of religion. Or freedom of speech, or the freedoms that we take for granted.

Oh boy. Freedom of speech is misconstrued anyway. Do I need to redirect your attention to the Alien and Sedition Act? Perhaps the Smith Act? Take a look at the scarier provisions of the Patriot Act. Those freedoms are not a bastion of freedom that you think it is.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

O RLY?

EDIT: Oh, and if that's not enough, then on the top of my head, I can recall several of these laws:

It is illegal to whistle underwater.
In Texas, you may not carry wire cutters in your pocket.
If two trains meet on a track, then both must stop and neither may continue until the other has passed.

And you claim that laws have to follow society's standards?

No I claimed that legitimate law has to follow society's standards. Prohibition and the other examples only confirm my point. They were examples of laws that are/were not taken legitimately by society at large. I mean, isn't that why the 30's were called the "Sober 30's" instead of the "Roaring 30's"? Or was it 20's? I forget.

*edit* But that's probably another point we won't agree on.

Originally Posted by Watts

Oh boy. Freedom of speech is misconstrued anyway. Do I need to redirect your attention to the Alien and Sedition Act? Perhaps the Smith Act? Take a look at the scarier provisions of the Patriot Act. Those freedoms are not a bastion of freedom that you think it is.

Congratulations. Now do you think you could argue my point?

Quote:

No I claimed that legitimate law has to follow society's standards. Prohibition and the other examples only confirm my point. They were examples of laws that are/were not taken legitimately by society at large. I mean, isn't that why the 30's were called the "Sober 30's" instead of the "Roaring 30's"? Or was it 20's? I forget.

*edit* But that's probably another point we won't agree on.

Legitimacy has nothing to do with your argument. The fact remains that a) We live in a social contract society (i.e. we, by being citizens, agree to obey the laws of the land), and b) those examples became laws. Thus, there is a potential for a law to go against the moral standards of the community at large, and even the potential for something like that to happen disproves your statement. You are claiming that there is a necessary connection between laws and morality, and then turning around and explaining away counterexamples by claiming that they're not "legitimate." Bullshit! If they weren't legitimate, then they wouldn't have become laws. The very concept of an illegitimate law is contradictory. :lolsign:

You really should be more careful with all or nothing statements, they're incredibly easy to disprove.

Quote:

The parents had no reasonable expectation that their first graders would be exposed to sexual matters.

Again this irrelevant this deals with the wisdom of the schools decision not the constitutionality of it. Nor was this even a point of argument in the case, the parents didn’t say our right were violated because “they lied to us and we didn’t know this could happen,” they said “you don’t have the right to teach our kids about sex anywhere, anytime period.” And even then not haveing a reasonable expectation that subject matter x would be presented does not mean presenting that subject matter in unconstitutional. Replace x with evolution, abortion, gun control, tolerance issues etc.

Secondly, you keep getting hung up on the fact that they were first graders I’ll repeat the question again. Do you believe all sex ed programs in public schools are un-constitutional? If this idea had passed all sex ed programs would be illegal a 17 year old would be equally effected by this as a first grader would. The parents request was not dependent of age, all minors would be unable to receive any form of sex ed in school.

Quote:

This seems to set a dangerous precedent in that just what can the state inquire of the children about concerning the private lives of the children or their parents?

It doesn’t because it does set ant precedent, it just follows existing ones:

“The Supreme Court has identified at least two constitutionally
protected privacy interests: the right to control the disclosure
of sensitive information”
The sex questions are no more sensitive information then are the questions about whether they have been beaten up. Nor was it even argued:

“The parents do not allege that
their children were forced to disclose private information.”
The fact that the state was inquiring information was never an issue, only the information decimated as part of the inquiry process. Yor inquire concern is not warranted.

The second reason:

right to “independence when
making certain kinds of important decisions.”

Weather a child receives information about x is not an important intimate decision. Replace x with evolution, abortion, gun control, tolerance issues etc.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that sexual content should be treated legally different then all over subjects in regards to education and the 14th amendment it is not. There is no reason to treat sexual content differently the all other forums of content and even if it there were reasons a case for such was made here only a matter of fact assertion that they had exclusive control over this matter. The judge can only rule on what in front of him the case they brought up was that layman’s terms “the state could in never say anything about sex to minors, because of the 14th. period”. Not "sex is unique and therefore should be treated differently the non-sex issues under the 14th” All your arguments are based on misconceptions about what the parents were asking for from a legal standpoint and the rather limited scope of the judges ruling.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Legitimacy has nothing to do with your argument. The fact remains that a) We live in a social contract society (i.e. we, by being citizens, agree to obey the laws of the land), and b) those examples became laws.]

Legitimacy has everything to do with my argument. Especially when talking about Prohibition. A law that was so widely disregarded and where authority of said law was flaunted on such a wide scale.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

You are claiming that there is a necessary connection between laws and morality, and then turning around and explaining away counterexamples by claiming that they're not "legitimate." Bullshit! If they weren't legitimate, then they wouldn't have become laws. The very concept of an illegitimate law is contradictory. :lolsign:

If it was legitimate they wouldn't be disregarded by pretty much everybody, even the moral crusaders that voted for it. President Harding voted for Prohibition when he was a Senator, but kept the White House stocked with bootleg alcohol. Our own president at the time disregarded such a illogical and illegitimate law.

Saying "Well they're legitimate because they're laws!" is false. Just because they're laws does not make them legitimate. Society as a whole must accept them as the standard. Thus when society doesn't accept them, the laws become illegitmate quickly. Laws are required to evolve over time to retain their relevancy and legitimacy or they die.

Originally Posted by Watts

Legitimacy has everything to do with my argument. Especially when talking about Prohibition. A law that was so widely disregarded and where authority of said law was flaunted on such a wide scale.

And the people who did that broke the law and were punished for it if they got caught. You're saying that because the majority of people disagreed with it then it wasn't legitimate. Guess what? A majority of people don't agree with taxes, nor do they agree with being fined for speeding! That makes them illegitimate!

You're putting forth a VERY dangerous argument here. You're essentially saying that laws aren't based upon an objective standard, but on the whims of the public, which is a) very hard to determine, and b) very easy to influence, either the public itself or the results of any testing.

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

And the people who did that broke the law and were punished for it if they got caught. You're saying that because the majority of people disagreed with it then it wasn't legitimate.

I'm not really saying anything, just posing a theoretical question. If the President of the United States openly flaunts the law; can it be considered legitimate? If the vast majority of people don't follow said law; is it legitimate?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

Guess what? A majority of people don't agree with taxes, nor do they agree with being fined for speeding! That makes them illegitimate!

The majority of the people think that taxes are a necessary evil. Since speeding tickets; like the lottery is a form of taxation, then that fits under the necessary evil catagory. Now, most people don't like taxes. They're not required too. The small minority of people, (I call them anarchists) don't buy that, nor accept that argument. Incidently they typically believe that the State's very existence violates their fundamental rights. (Had to stay on topic somehow! Or tie-in)

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

You're putting forth a VERY dangerous argument here.

Well at least we finally agree on something eh? Long and drawn out discussions tends to do that.

Yes, I am putting forth some dangerous ideas. The question is, dangerous to whom?

Originally Posted by Murdercrow

You're essentially saying that laws aren't based upon an objective standard, but on the whims of the public, which is a) very hard to determine, and b) very easy to influence, either the public itself or the results of any testing.

You're half-right. I am putting forth the idea that law is not based upon objective standard. However, I'm not saying it's based on the whims on the public. Take slavery for example. Was that on the whims of the public? Did it benefit the public? I would like to think that both are false. Yet, slavery as an institution existed and was protected/enforced by the law. Cui bono?