[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The legitimacy of federal government involvement in education is debatable, but not state.
[/QUOTE]
And parental involvement? I trust that the legitimacy of this isn’t debatable either.
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
And parental involvement? I trust that the legitimacy of this isn’t debatable either.
[/QUOTE]
Nobody debates its legitimacy. The issue is who should prevail when the state decides one thing WRT a child’s education and the parents decide another. I hope it’s obvious that letting the parents have their way in all circumstances would be indefensible.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Eh? You mean, incorporated so as to apply to state government as well as federal? Whyever not?
[/QUOTE]
There is no constitutional justification for incorporating the 1st Amendment to the states. The justification of incorporation comes from the 14th Amendment, but this goes against the plain text of the 14th Amendment.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Comes under the state’s (every state’s) general plenary police power. The legitimacy of federal government involvement in education is debatable, but not state.
[/QUOTE]
I know the state government claims this, but it’s in the interest of every government to claim as much power as it can. I simply disagree with the notion that it’s the state’s responsibility (as opposed to the parents’) to educate children. Yes, voters can decide that they want to tax everyone to pay for such education, but that does not mean that they should have the power to compel every person in a certain geographic area to hand over their children to the state for whatever indoctrination the government deems acceptable.
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
There is no constitutional justification for incorporating the 1st Amendment to the states. The justification of incorporation comes from the 14th Amendment, but this goes against the plain text of the 14th Amendment.
[/QUOTE]
You mean incorporation as such goes against the text of the 14th Amendment, or only incorporation of the First Amendment?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Nobody really knows what the Ninth Amendment means, nor the Tenth either; there has never been any significant case law construing them.
[/QUOTE]
The 10th Amendment has some pretty significant case law. Garcia being the most important.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Nobody debates its legitimacy. The issue is who should prevail when the state decides one thing WRT a child’s education and the parents decide another. I hope it’s obvious that letting the parents have their way in all circumstances would be indefensible.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, when the life or possibly the health of the child is at stake. But when you are talking merely about what types of things the child is taught, I fail to see any justification for presuming that the government knows better than a parent how to raise a child.
[QUOTE=Renob]
I know the state government claims this, but it’s in the interest of every government to claim as much power as it can. I simply disagree with the notion that it’s the state’s responsibility (as opposed to the parents’) to educate children. Yes, voters can decide that they want to tax everyone to pay for such education, but that does not mean that they should have the power to compel every person in a certain geographic area to hand over their children to the state for whatever indoctrination the government deems acceptable.
[/QUOTE]
Well, now you’re making a policy as opposed to a legal/constitutional argument. And it is based on first principles out of which you almost certainly can’t be argued; just bear in mind that they are the first principles only of a minority.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Well, now you’re making a policy as opposed to a legal/constitutional argument. And it is based on first principles out of which you almost certainly can’t be argued; just bear in mind that they are the first principles only of a minority.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with everything you say. I just find it unfortunate that the principles of liberty and individual freedom are now only held by a minority in this nation.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
You mean incorporation as such goes against the text of the 14th Amendment, or only incorporation of the First Amendment?
[/QUOTE]
The incorporation of any of the first eight amendments goes against the text of 14th Amendment.
[QUOTE=Renob]
I agree with everything you say. I just find it unfortunate that the principles of liberty and individual freedom are now only held by a minority in this nation.
[/QUOTE]
They’re not. Your interpretation of the principles of liberty and individual freedom is now held only by a minority in this nation. (Which does not make that interpretation wrong nor right, but it is in important factor to take into account when evaluating it.)
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
The incorporation of any of the first eight amendments goes against the text of 14th Amendment.
[/QUOTE]
To which part of the text are you referring?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Nobody really knows what the Ninth Amendment means, nor the Tenth either; there has never been any significant case law construing them.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe true, but the un-enumerated rights implied by the Ninth has been used, along with the undefined personal liberty implied by the 14th, to argue against government intrusion into the private sphere…
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
They’re not. Your interpretation of the principles of liberty and individual freedom is now held only by a minority in this nation. (Which does not make that interpretation wrong nor right, but it is in important factor to take into account when evaluating it.)
[/QUOTE]
True, but don’t you know that my interpretation is the correct one? 
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
So you think the 9th Amendment creates (or protects) judicially enforceable, individual rights that can negate state (not federal) laws?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it creates them, but I do think it protects them when considered with the 14th amendment:
[Quote=The Constitution of the United States of America]
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[/quote]
I believe this view is validated with how the Supreme Court has applied the 14th in case law…
on Editing:
Never mind, it appears you and BG are already discussing this…
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
To which part of the text are you referring?
[/QUOTE]
The arguments for incorporation comes from two clause - the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause.
If the Privileges or Immunities Clause incorporated the Bill of Rights, there would be no need for the Due Process Clause.
And there is no way to logically read the Due Process Clause as incorporating the Bill of Rights.
[QUOTE=dangermom]
If you’re interested, you could read up on the homeschooling folks’ perspective here. Start at the bottom for chronological order.
The way most independent homeschoolers operate in California is to register as a private school. This is what I do. It is simple, and allows me great freedom. The family in the court case was registered in a private umbrella school. I don’t know why they decided to try to challenge the existing arrangement, which is a very good one for California homeschoolers.
[/QUOTE]
Do your kids have to take the tests mandated by application of NCLB? How about the tests required for high school graduation?
[QUOTE=Two and a Half Inches of Fun]
And there is no way to logically read the Due Process Clause as incorporating the Bill of Rights.
[/QUOTE]
Do you have a specific criticism of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Gitlow v. New York?
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Do your kids have to take the tests mandated by application of NCLB? How about the tests required for high school graduation?
[/QUOTE]
Privately-schooled children aren’t required to take the tests, but I haven’t got any particular problem with having my kids take them. I will when they’re older. Right now my oldest is 7, and I think it’s ridiculous to make 2nd-graders sit through hours of standardized testing. The emphasis on testing is a small part of why we homeschool, and enough of my teacher friends complain about NCLB and the resulting testing obsession that I think my opinion is pretty reasonable.
My husband and I have every intention of educating our kids to a higher standard than that achieved by the majority of public schools in California. Our kids are reasonably bright, and I’m not worried about their ability to pass any tests when the time comes, but I’m not going to make them do it too young. If it became law that I do so, I would–I’d just think it was a stupid law, just as I think testing all kids under, say, age 10 is a stupid requirement.
Is it time to start an “ask the homeschooler” thread in IMHO? I’m willing, though I would welcome some help.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Do your kids have to take the tests mandated by application of NCLB? How about the tests required for high school graduation?
[/QUOTE]
My daughter was homeschooled through a program attached to the local school district for a little over two years. She took all the mandated tests. I’m not sure this decision will even effect that program, since each child’s curriculum is supervised and approved by a licensed teacher.