The criminalization of parents

WorldNetDaily ^ | March 15, 2008 | Stephen Baskerville

[RogerFGay]

The California appeals court decision criminalizing parents who homeschool their children is only the tip of an iceberg. Nationwide, parents are already being criminalized in huge numbers, and it is not limited to homeschoolers.

During the Clinton years, the trend toward turning children into tools for expanding government power increased rapidly. Otherwise indefensible programs and regulations are now rationalized as "for the children."

[kjo]

Always remember, “it takes a village”...of village of government inspectors, busy-bodies, and assorted liberals.

Not sure this is a war we are going to win. The courts trump all, just ask Hillary.

[sionnsar]

The genius of the feminists is to vilify fathers in terms designed to incur the revulsion of decent people – "pedophiles," "batterers," "deadbeat dads" – and too many conservatives and Christians are fooled.

[maine-iac7]

BUMP

[Sherman Logan]

People are over-reacting to the CA case.

While it found no constitutional right to homeschool, parents are still legally allowed to homeschool under several different provisions in the law of the state. The family in the CA case claimed they didn’t have to obey these not overly restrictive laws.

Conservatives should be the last people to claim that anything someone wants to do must be found in the Constitution.

[Ukiapah Heep]

Persoanlly, I'm looking forward to the emancipation of my kid, to being out from under the threat of criminal penalty if I loose my job and returning to freedom of speech.

Terrorizing parents, especially dads is one of the liberals most effective tools.

[wintertime]

I read the judge’s report. It was the reasoning he used in his opinion that was shocking. It is the JUDGE who is claiming that parents have no Constitutional right to homeschool, and therefore no right to homeschool.

His opinion about religious belief not being a sufficient reason to object to government teaching in the school was another blow.

If this judge’s opinion is not struck down, courts across the nation will use this as a basis for their opinions.

Sorry, parents don’t need a “constitutional” right. Their right to homeschool is an endowment from God! Our right to freedom of conscience is also another endowment from the Creator.

[Sherman Logan]

While I’m not familiar with the CA Constitution, I don’t see a constitutional right to homeschool your children in the US Constitution.

Not unless you start getting into emanations and penumbras and such, which is largely how we got into our present mess.

Conservatives should avoid the modern-day temptation to read all our desires into the Constitution. There are a great many things the Constitution just has no comment on, leaving it up to the democratic process.

I suspect homeschoolers can take care of themselves in the democratic process at the state level. The only way for homeschooling to lose, IMHO, would be for a court to find a constitutional prohibition of the process, removing it in the process from consideration by the Democratic process.

BTW, I have two daughters, homeschooled for a total of 12 years at this point.

[RoadTest]

The attack on the family is intensifying. It’s initiated by the backers of the New World Order. The plan is to government school everybody in the ways of Big Brother. When they’ve broken the family they’ve eliminated the resistance to world groupthink.

[RoadTest]

“it found no constitutional right to homeschool”

There’s no Constitutional right to Government schools.

[RogerFGay]

Conservatives should be the last people to claim that anything someone wants to do must be found in the Constitution.

Conservatives are the last people to say that; Republicans are not. This is a classic dividing line. Unfortunately, both parties are now solidly on the wrong side. Lust for power has trumped the whole freedom thing. Power corrupts. The absolute power that's been held by these two small groups in our de facto two party system has accomplished the task of corrupting absolutely.

[RogerFGay]

Terrorizing parents, especially dads is one of the liberals most effective tools.

By that definition, both parties and the whole of government are dedicated to liberalism. A crueler distortion of the meaning of a word I've never seen.

[RogerFGay]

There is no longer any presumption of a right. That’s the overarching problem that most people haven’t realized. Over the past few decades, private issues have been transformed into “social policy” - allowing everything that was once personal to be absorbed into government programs and government control. There is no longer any area in which the personal life exists as a legal construct - not such that any fundamental right can be implicit or presumed. Even the most basic rights, such as freedom of religion, are no longer associated with any substance.

[Republic of Texas]

The point is not that the right to homeschool is found in the Constitution, it’s that the government’s right to restrict homeschooling is NOT found in the Constitution. All other rights and poweres NOT found in the Constitution are reserved for the PEOPLE AND THE STATES.

[RogerFGay]

Conservatives should avoid the modern-day temptation to read all our desires into the Constitution. There are a great many things the Constitution just has no comment on, leaving it up to the democratic process.

No, see ... that view is fundamentally about as far left as it is possible to go. If you read and understand the Bill of Rights, as well as contemplate the structure and relationships of the Constitution (such as Art. 1, Sec. 8; enumerated powers) - and understand American history or just apply common sense for that matter - you'll realize that presuming no right exists to do anything without explicit legislation granting permission - is opposite the whole ideal of freedom on which the country is founded.

Something not being explicit in the Constitution should always raise the argument that the right exists - not that government has the power to control.

[Sherman Logan]

presuming no right exists to do anything without explicit legislation granting permission - is opposite the whole ideal of freedom on which the country is founded.

As with the constitutional rights to abortion on demand, gay marriage, the right not to be offended, etc.?

[RogerFGay]

The attack on the family is intensifying.

Not really. What's actually happening is that the government is applying unconstitutional control that it created for itself over the past few decades. This is the part where the family is running from the battlefield, dripping in blood, and screaming for mercy; while the invaders trample over them and mow them down from behind.

Worse yet, there are no pro-family groups calling for measures that are needed that would do anything to help. Homeschoolers stood by and cheered as government attacked fathers. Marriage and family were transformed from private issues to social policy - controlled by government - and defined merely as artifacts of political decisions.

Now homeschoolers are on the chopping block. People who send their children to school won't pay much attention and homeschoolers will neither demand useful political change nor join to support others who've been trampled before them.

[RogerFGay]

As with the constitutional rights to abortion on demand, gay marriage, the right not to be offended, etc.?

It was written that something fundamental in the country died when the Roe v. Wade decision was announced. What I've seen in the years that followed is this support from "conservatives" for the elimination of the right of personal privacy. It's proven what common sense would already tell us - general elimination of the right of privacy because you don't like a decision made in its name is truly more dangerous than that decision. I personally do not count anyone who does not support the right of privacy as a real American conservative; I quite frankly, can't find a way to think of them as American.

As for same-sex marriage; that was destined as a result of transforming marriage and family from private "civil" law to social policy. This transformation - which eliminates any thought of marriage and family as sacred and private, and puts them legally on the same footing as welfare entitlements and taxes - came about years before state courts thought it unconstitutional to deny the benefits of such arbitrary political programs (such as marriage and family) to same-sex couples. Privacy is not to blame.

[Sherman Logan]

Abortion as a privacy right is based on the assumption that only the mother has any rights. The exact same argument, of course, was made for slavery, on the assumption that the state had no right to interfere with another man’s property. Both arguments require ignoring the possibility that the fetus or the slave might have rights of their own.

Similarly, arguments that what is done within the family is nobody else’s business due to the right to privacy requires the assumption that the children in the family have no rights of their own that should be enforced by the state. Let us assume that a parent decided to not educate his children at all, or even teach them to read.

Would his right to privacy trump their right and the state’s to ensure that citizens are able to function in society?

[webstersII]

“People are over-reacting to the CA case.”

Really? here’s what the judge said:
“A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”

The issue is, according to the judge, that the HS children are not getting the training in ‘good citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state”.

“parents are still legally allowed to homeschool under several different provisions in the law of the state. The family in the CA case claimed they didn’t have to obey these not overly restrictive laws.”

That’s not the issue in this case. The court was concerned that these children were being abused and since no one is observing them on a daily basis (i.e., at school) then HS should not be allowed.

[Sherman Logan]

Nope. The parents chose not to comply with CA law. They claimed their children were attending a school which they were not really attending.

The judge’s quote is entirely appropriate. There is an entirely appropriate public interest in insuring that children are educated.

Obviously the ruling is something to be concerned about, but only insofar as it may represent the top of a slippery slope. The ruling itself is no big deal. And I suspect that homeschooling parents in CA are well able to take care of themselves politically and in the press.

While you hear a lot of hollering about rights being taken away, I suspect that homeschooling is better accepted today than ever before.

[relictele]

Too right.

Reading opinion letters and overhearing conversations with MOST people these days indicates they are completely unfamiliar with the concept of individual rights.

I live in an area where the largest employer in many counties is the public school system. As you might expect most around here think public schools and public school teachers can do no wrong despite the shamefully ignorant graduates they have spent 12+ years producing.

[RogerFGay]

Nicely presented questions Sherman. This gets to the question of boundary. The issue however is about presumption; who has the burden of proof about a right or exercise of power - force against the individual. I don't think the question of boundary can be answered generally, so my response will relate more to the presumption.

Both arguments require ignoring the possibility that the fetus or the slave might have rights of their own.

I agree. So, I don't see it as putting the value of a presumption of a right of privacy in question. We are still plagued by laws favoring certain groups; for example, the new marriage and family stuff. It's obvious that the federal laws that destroyed marriage and family are unconstitutional in several ways (including the fact that they are federal laws). If the right of privacy was properly respected, those suffering the most from these laws could have kept the fed. from causing their suffereing, and saved marriage and family in the bargain. I think this argument will become clearer below.

Similarly, arguments that what is done within the family is nobody else’s business due to the right to privacy requires the assumption that the children in the family have no rights of their own that should be enforced by the state. Let us assume that a parent decided to not educate his children at all, or even teach them to read.

In such a case, the state may be able to prove that such parents are abusive. Privacy rights, as you may know, are not unlimited. For example, murder is still illegal even if someone expresses a personal preference for it.

Would his right to privacy trump their right and the state’s to ensure that citizens are able to function in society?

The right of privacy makes the level of review higher for laws that may infringe on the right. It means that the substance of the law must be considered and whether the law goes too far to enforce an alleged state interest. The burden is much more on the state to show that they have a compelling interest, and that the law does not exceed that interest. Without such a right, taken to be presumptive, people have no protection against laws merely claimed to support a general interest; but are actually completely arbitrary.

So now let's say that we have a child with special needs and there is no state or licensed private facility that is sufficiently capable of caring for the child adequately. If required to attend such schools, the child will suffer physically and emotionally. And let's say that the parents are both willing and able to provide the child with the best possible upbringing. Should the state have the power to force the child out of the home and into a damaging environment because they have made the general claim that having this power is for the good of children?

If there is no constitutional question at stake, the answer is that the state can force the child into the damaging environment. The parents have no constitutional protection. If a constitutional question does exist, then the parents would have access to a process that could force the state to appropriate limits to their power.

[VOA]

bump

[RogerFGay]

Reading opinion letters and overhearing conversations with MOST people these days indicates they are completely unfamiliar with the concept of individual rights.

Individual rights are like the dead sea scrolls these days. People have heard of them, but only a few obscure specialists ever discuss them in detail.

They are pretty much dead in America. Nobody's really explaining that on the "main-stream" news or behaving as though it's at all important.

[RogerFGay]

The issue is, according to the judge, that the HS children are not getting the training in ‘good citizenship, patriotism, and loyalty to the state”.

That is pretty scary, given the views of the two parties on what good citizenship is and how it's been implemented in the laws. The US is looking so much more like what we've despised about communist China and the Soviet Union. The individual is dead. Family is irrelevant. Political indocrination by the state .... why, next thing you know, schools will be forcing children to watch Al Gore's "An Inconvinient Truth."

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Demography is destiny.

[buckalfa]

You are way behind the times my friend, Gore’s video lie is required viewing in many public schools. Neighbor’s second grader is frightened over the fate of the polar bears due to global warming.

[RoadTest]

You mean we’ve already lost the war?

[RogerFGay]

I knew that. I was being sarcastic to emphasize how far public manipulation (mind control) has gone - we’re way past the point where simple debates over the proper boundary between government control and privacy / freedom are sufficient.

[RogerFGay]

Yes. We've lost the war. The big trick was that it happened through a series of battles. People were led to believe those battles were isolated, didn't effect them personally, and fed propaganda to give the sense that the battles were justified. That "other guy" the government needed to crush was always so much less than human; eating babies and raping women; the government had no choice but to enforce better behavior from those animals.

But guess what - they lied. Most of the "animals" were normal people sitting at home, minding their own business, just trying to make it through life like everyone else. Existing laws weren't sufficient because they were built on the idea that government isn't supposed to crush ordinary people who are generally minding their own business and trying to get along. Constitutional rights were eliminated and government gained absolute control in areas were protection against arbitrary government intrusion is essential.

The only way to regain lost ground now is to start another war - this time with a better public understanding of what it's about and how everyone is effected.

[RogerFGay]

I've realized there is a short, concise way to summarize the problem that I see. We're being manipulated. Constitutional rights for the ordinary citizen have been eliminated; with devastating effects on fundamentals of life, liberty, and happiness. New rights are being created in different ways - no longer within the scope of privacy - but within the framework of universal entitlement to the benefits of government programs, regardless of things like sexual orientation.

It seems to me that we've entered an era where the only constitutional battles being one will offend many people, as they further destroy culture, common sense, and fundamental freedom; a result of moving private issues into the public domain. That unfortunately, causes a knee jerk reaction - a desire for government authority to be exercised to put bad spirits back in the bottle. That is exactly the most counter-productive response.

The cause of the problem is the shift of private issues into the public policy domain. There is a huge legal difference between marriage and family as we knew it (a civil matter) and what it is now ("social policy"). We need to put marriage and family back into the private domain where privacy protections apply.

[RogerFGay]

Sorry for the spelling errors. Occassionally, I get wrapped up in the ideas and don't worry about spelling - not noticing mistakes until after I've posted.

that = what in first sentence; one = won in second paragraph kinds of thing :: I'm pretty sure it's still understandable.

[RogerFGay]

You might be interesting in visiting the IMDB website and commenting in the forum for discussion of An Inconvinient Truth, perhaps in the thread suggesting that the school systems should be sued.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/

[webstersII]

“Individual rights are like the dead sea scrolls these days. People have heard of them, but only a few obscure specialists ever discuss them in detail.”

You are so right. And many of the biggest crusaders against individual rights these days are right here on FR.

[RogerFGay]

“You are so right. And many of the biggest crusaders against individual rights these days are right here on FR.”

Ronald Reagan killed the conservative movement and destroyed the Republican Party. Everyone was so proud of “Reagan Democrats” back when they signed up with him. But Reagan never converted Democrats to the conservative cause. “The Great Communicator” rephrased the definition of “conservative” to make it compatable with far left reformation. Today, “Republican conservative” is an oxymoron.