Parental rights denied by 9th Circuit Court

It may come as a shock to some of you, but not all first graders know that masturbation, self-mutilation, sexual abuse and excessive violent and gory movies and TV even exist. Why expose them to those concepts at such an early age? Sure, they're going to learn about all that stuff eventually, but doesn't anyone hold childhood innocence sacred anymore? Don't the parents have the right keep them innocent until they're a little older?

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

"In fact, the survey asked seven year olds to “rate the following activities” among which were these:

8. Touching my private parts too much
17. Thinking about having sex
22. Thinking about touching other people’s private parts
23. Thinking about sex when I don’t want to
26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside

34. Not trusting people because they might want sex
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
44. Having sex feelings in my body
47. Can’t stop thinking about sex
54. Getting upset when people talk about sex "

These are the actual questions. Seems a bit heavy handed to ask seven year olds this when the thing they think about the most is Spongebob. A survey like this, done at such an early age, doesn't just inquire, it provides. These type of questions to a 7 year old, in an authoritarian school setting will undoubtedly prompt the kid, who probably never thought about sex at all, to wonder if he should start. Should he touch himself? Should he think about touching others private parts? The survey opens doors way to early that should be opened when a parent deems fit.

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?

Again..the question at the heart of this is who has the ultimate authority over our children? The way the government runs most things the thought of them having exclusive control over the education of kids is frightening to say the least.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Faith, Kensaki, the word you're looking for is Faith.

The government really shouldn't have a say in what parents teach their children. If Achmed wants to tell his eldest son that his sister is a harlot because she dresses up like all the other Western girls, that's their business. Whether or not Elder son buys all that crap is up to him.

Children are impressionable, yes, but who is to say who is right? The state, obviously, because that's what you're going for. If, however, we've assumed that only the state can dictate sound morals, then all children should be taken into custody by the state, as their parents can't be trusted.

Of course you have your racists, and your hotheads, but they're free to practice their religions and free to voice their opinions. When an addict teaches his kid how to coke meth, then you have a case for civil services, but you shouldn't be legislating thought.

Thanks for the correction on faith.

Yes of course most of the time the system shouldn't interfere in a family situation. But doesn't hurt to keep an eye on that. Doesn't go to far from your sister is a harlot too your sister must die cause she has brought shame upon the family. I've seen alot of these cases.

I guess you could say I have little faith in the average persons ability to not impart their more dark traits what they may be racism, criminality or drugs. I am most likely being over zealous on this issue but as I have said before I've seen the results of situations that could have been avoided all togheter if the system had taken a step to correct it.

By the way I'm not directly talking about taking children away from parents, rather keep an eye on suspicious parents that could be gathered from tests like these. It may be a bit big brother but well... Small price to pay if you ask me.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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?

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland

It may come as a shock to some of you, but not all first graders know that masturbation, self-mutilation, sexual abuse and excessive violent and gory movies and TV even exist. Why expose them to those concepts at such an early age? Sure, they're going to learn about all that stuff eventually, but doesn't anyone hold childhood innocence sacred anymore? Don't the parents have the right keep them innocent until they're a little older?

Alice, the school respected that when they sent out consent forms.

Also, it's still kind of creeping me out that nobody's getting this, maybe it's just me. If parents have a fundamental right to control what their children learn, that means they can call upon the courts to take action against anyone who introduces anything to their kids which doesn't meet their approval. That sounds like a legal nightmare to me. I could sue the neighbors for letting their kids swear near mine.

I also want to make sure everyone is aware that nobody said anything about parents not having a say in raising their kids. The only thing that ruling said was that the rest of society has a right too. Since when has a child ever been raised without society's input? This doesn't seem new to me.

Further, I recall while I was in high school, everyone was bitching about parents having too much control over the school system. The school administration was tied up about so many things because the PTA/PTO had so much weight. So, it seems to me that if your kid hears/learns something you didn't want them too, you first present your viewpoint, with all the authority of parenthood behind it, and then you rally and kick the shit out of the place that allowed it.

Regarding childhood innocence, I agree, it's a wonderful ideal. I'll point out that in my experience, it was ruined by my peers, not by the administration. I'm certain this is the norm.

This is an affirmation of the status quo, why are we all up in arms about it now?

FELIPE NO

Lack of exclusive control meaning that if I as a parent decide that little Jimmy not learn all about the birds and the bees until, oh lets say he's 9 years old, but the state, in its infinite wisdom, decides that innocent little Jimmy be introduced to sex and touching himself, and touching other people, or, lets go beyond the survey, since we're talking sexual matters not just the survey, condom usage, at age 7, then I am a parent am shit out of luck.
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. This ruling is ludicrous and it is bad law.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Quote:

Yes of course most of the time the system shouldn't interfere in a family situation. But doesn't hurt to keep an eye on that. Doesn't go to far from your sister is a harlot too your sister must die cause she has brought shame upon the family. I've seen alot of these cases.

And you're right, in the case where there's a plausible reason to believe that a child is in danger, then the parents should be monitored at least somewhat. However, applying this logic to racism and extremist ideology is specifically infringing on the freedom of speech of the parents. Centuries of liberal thought have insisted that ideas aren't dangerous. If we willingly infringe on people's rights based on any criteria, then we've no claim to them.

Maybe you think the peering eyes over your shoulder is worth the avoidance of some childhood trauma, but I don't.

Quote:

By the way I'm not directly talking about taking children away from parents, rather keep an eye on suspicious parents that could be gathered from tests like these.

The thing about the survey was that it was anonymous for the participants. In the end, all we get is a bunch of numbers on charts, and parents have to answer awkward questions. No rescued children, no winners, except the surveyors.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Dear Wesker: "Bad Law" is a phrase with a specific meaning. It doesn't just mean "a law that I think is bad". Please be more careful.

Furthermore, if you think little kids aren't already naturally curious about the interior of their underpants, you're deluded. Little boys don't need a class to tell them that girls don't have a thing down there, you dumb spastic.

The Wesker Philosophy: "If anyone learns anything, they will probably use this knowledge to commit a crime!" If this is a reflection on the way YOUR brain worked at 7, Wesker, I feel kind of afraid of you.

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling

Ok for all you kiddies who don't think that your parents know best, why don't you just divorce your parents and let the state have custody so you can have a good life and be raised right like good little fascists.

Because, you know, traditional parenting doesn't ever result in screwed-up lunatics who practice taxidermy on their mothers.

At some point, the line has to be drawn: "You cannot raise your child like that." You cannot raise your child by smacking his teeth out with a belt buckle. You cannot raise your child by chaining her to the basement radiator. You cannot raise your child by freely providing him with vodka from the age of 2. Doing any of these things to your children will result in a very dissatisfying visit from John Law. These are all reasonable restrictions: Why would anyone object to them? They are intended to protect the child from the sheer maliciousness or stupidity of the parent. As such, the child's well-being has had priority over "I'm his daddy so I can do what I want" for quite some time. Now, let's all be touchy-feely about moral beliefs, eh? For example, let's say I have a moral belief that only Jesus Christ can cure disease and injury, and that the use of medicines is an abominable sin. Let's say that for this reason I refuse to let my child receive any medical assistance although he has been disemboweled by a bear. Now, in the event that the kid miraculously survives, do you think the state will look fondly upon me as a responsible parent? No, of course not. But I didn't DO anything, I just imparted my moral beliefs on my child! I'm allowed to do that! I'm a PARENT! Don't parents have any rights in this godforsaken communist hellhole of a country anymore?!

Additionally, there's a little thing called psychological damage. Now, I know those of you who are fondly stroking your autographed thanks-for-donating letters from our President just chuckled over that one, but it's a significant matter of law. Rape, for example, need not cause any physical harm to the victim. But it's still illegal, even though you didn't really hurt anybody! What's up with that. And hey, if I rape my DAUGHTER, I mean, she's not actually hurt, and I'm a PARENT, god dammit. I was just imparting my moral value that the age of consent should be lowered to around 14!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

You forgot about incest.

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

Quote:

Because, you know, traditional parenting doesn't ever result in screwed-up lunatics who practice taxidermy on their mothers.

At some point, the line has to be drawn: "You cannot raise your child like that." You cannot raise your child by smacking his teeth out with a belt buckle. You cannot raise your child by chaining her to the basement radiator. You cannot raise your child by freely providing him with vodka from the age of 2. Doing any of these things to your children will result in a very dissatisfying visit from John Law. These are all reasonable restrictions: Why would anyone object to them? They are intended to protect the child from the sheer maliciousness or stupidity of the parent. As such, the child's well-being has had priority over "I'm his daddy so I can do what I want" for quite some time. Now, let's all be touchy-feely about moral beliefs, eh? For example, let's say I have a moral belief that only Jesus Christ can cure disease and injury, and that the use of medicines is an abominable sin. Let's say that for this reason I refuse to let my child receive any medical assistance although he has been disemboweled by a bear. Now, in the event that the kid miraculously survives, do you think the state will look fondly upon me as a responsible parent? No, of course not. But I didn't DO anything, I just imparted my moral beliefs on my child! I'm allowed to do that! I'm a PARENT! Don't parents have any rights in this godforsaken communist hellhole of a country anymore?!

Additionally, there's a little thing called psychological damage. Now, I know those of you who are fondly stroking your autographed thanks-for-donating letters from our President just chuckled over that one, but it's a significant matter of law. Rape, for example, need not cause any physical harm to the victim. But it's still illegal, even though you didn't really hurt anybody! What's up with that. And hey, if I rape my DAUGHTER, I mean, she's not actually hurt, and I'm a PARENT, god dammit. I was just imparting my moral value that the age of consent should be lowered to around 14!

And I think the examples you've provided are things pretty much everyone thinks is wrong. However, using these examples as justification for the abbrogation of parental rights is simply absurd. In fairness, it's not that you are advocating that, but to say that parents don't have the right to educate their children in the manner they choose (within all legal reason) is absurd.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by AliceNWondrland

Don't the parents have the right keep them innocent until they're a little older?

You mean like the religious right who try to shut down television shows, movies and music for offensive material - but then bean the Bible which contains incest, gore, angels turning people to salt, guys fucking their wives handmaidens and gigantic wars?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling

Geeze, I love this shit.

Ok for all you kiddies who don't think that your parents know best, why don't you just divorce your parents and let the state have custody so you can have a good life and be raised right like good little fascists.

Did you get the message of my post? Of course parents know what's best for their OWN kids, but not what's best for all kids. Did you read this line from my post?

Quote:

What is not allowed (and upheld by this court) is parents spreading their own agenda over all kids instead of just their own.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

[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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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?

I was speaking idiomatically.

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?

Most amazing jew boots

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)

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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

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.

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