Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court

It amazes me how people can link to a decisions quote a decision and still complete miss the point. Wisker, the decision does not weaken partial rights in the slightest parents have the exact same rights after the decision that they had before.

The decision only say parents do not have exclusive control over when a child is introduced to information. No where in that decision does it say that state knows more then the parents do about what good for the children, or that it has exclusive control. In fact it says the opposite:

In Prince v. Massa-
chusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Court recognized that par-
ents’ liberty interest in the custody, care, and nurture of their
children resides “first” in the parents, but does not reside there
exclusively, nor is it “beyond regulation [by the state] in the
public interest.”

Quote:

As to the history argument..are we exposing 7 year olds to the full graphic horror of the holocaust or is that reserved for an older audience?

Irrelevant did you even read the decisions. The question is: is it unconstitutional? not if it’s a good idea, not if right. Is it a good idea no, it is unconstitutional no it not. All this talk about weather it was a good idea to give the survey is a red herrings as it irrelevant to the decision

Quote:

Again..the question at the heart of this is who has the ultimate authority over our children?

No it not it about if parents have exclusive rights to control “introduction and flow of sexual information “. No they don’t, never have. Let me spell it out for you: if parents rights are exclusive then all public schools would have to, taking the idea to it’s logical extreme, stop teaching biology as well as many other classes. Because they deal with sex and a non-parent introducing the information would violate this supposed right. No such right has ever existed:

"It is clear, and the parents agree,
that no court has ever held that parents have a specific funda-
mental right “to control the upbringing of their children by
introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accor-
dance with their personal and religious values and beliefs.” In
fact, 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."

The parents knew this and all the case really amounted to was a bunch of pissed off soccer moms trying to find loopholes in the law. The parents are the one who wanted to create precedent here Wisker by find a previously undiscovered constitutional right.

The judge made the right decision, following legal precedent. People over the internet then preceded to misinterpret it, end of story.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

then I am a parent am shit out of luck.

No you are not, again the decisions does not say what you think it does. Non-exclusive doesn’t mean mandatory forced learning. The discussion effect the right of public schools:
You as a parents have a right to not sign the consent form.
You as a parent have the right to home school your child.
You have the right to send your child to private school.
You as a parents have a right to get the school board to change it’s curriculum

You are making a jump from non-exclusive to governmentally exclusive, this is not even close to reality. All the judge said in layman’s terms is if you chose to give your child to our school system you can’t to say we violate your 14 amendments rights because we made a bad call and said something you didn’t like. Your misinterpreting the legalese because believe it or not this is all this amounts to.

Quote:

So little Jimmy comes home from school and being only 7 and not emotionally able to handle the new sexual knowledge he has, starts touching his little sisters vagina.

Again with the red herrings, you are not getting it. This has nothing to do with whether it was a good or bad idea. Bad idea dose not equal unconstitutional. If this event occurred then it obvious the school made a horribly bad decisions and the parents could go try going for damages in a court of civil law, (not that I think they would win mind you but it illustrates a point) but that still has no bearing on the constitutionality of it. Do you consider teacher first grades the full horror of the holocaust unconstitutional or simply a horrible idea?

You are mad because of the word sex in the decision not it legality. Again the example you keep avoiding: all public schools following your ludicrous logic must be shut down because all public schools by definition violate this supposed right.
When YOU, the parent, send a child a child to a school to a public you are choosing to send them to someone else to be educated. If you are sending them to someone else you are no longer the exclusive means of information. You cannot simultaneously say that I want someone else to educated my child and demand exclusive control of said education. Again lots of people hate that their child is taught evolution in school and if parents have exclusive control then all biology programs in public schools are unconstitutional. Or not even evolution just pure biology that deals with reproduction. No it not different, Wisker exclusive means excusive, any program is suspect if you have this supposed exclusive right.

Read the decision again Wisker this isn’t “bad law” it the same law that has been in place this country inception. This doesn’t set a dangerous precedent it upholds existing precedent. Not having this right hasn’t caused any problem for our nations in the last 200+ years, I don’t see any reason why going to suddenly start cause problems. Again it amazing how many people are shocked when they actually read the law as written. The judge did make new precedent he upheld existing precedent. Let me ask: again did your parents have any problems raising you with out this exclusive right? Mine seemed to handle it just fine. (and just to make it redundantly clear the judge was quoting existing cases when he said parents did not have exclusive rights he was not making it up)
So wekser if the law is so bad please list for some of the horrors past generations have faced by not having this right.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

[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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

Most amazing jew boots