Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
OverSword

Holder on Banning Home Schooling

170 posts in this topic

.. there are laws against speeding... ... Holder appears to be saying , there could be law created to ban home schooling... and that wouldn't violate people's rights. ..?

To which I would think ... *well then, something's wrong *

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning homeschooling would ban your right to homeschool, just like banning speeding band my right to speed. What he's saying is that the bam wouldn't violate any human rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What he's saying is that the bam wouldn't violate any human rights.
We dont care about Human Rights so much in America. Our Constitution is suppose to protect us from being violated on a Human Rights level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We dont care about Human Rights so much in America. Our Constitution is suppose to protect us from being violated on a Human Rights level.

I don't see it as violating the rights guaranteed to you by your BOR.

I don't think it should be banned, but I also don't think it violates anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also don't think it violates anything

Thats what makes it protected by the BOR. They would have to invent a new Law to make it a violation.

Edited by AsteroidX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats what makes it protected by the BOR. They would have to invent a new Law to make it a violation.

Are you saying that it is protected by the BOR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Stellar now weve talked this in a circle. Not going for another loop. My final answer: try and prevent me from Home Schooling my child if I choose to do so.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Stellar now weve talked this in a circle. Not going for another loop. My final answer: try and prevent me from Home Schooling my child if I choose to do so.

Your final answer has nothing to do with the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banning homeschooling would ban your right to homeschool, just like banning speeding band my right to speed. What he's saying is that the bam wouldn't violate any human rights.

nahh .. he's saying a ban wouldn't violate our constitutional rights? I don't think speeding (at the risk of human life) equates to the dangers of .. home schooling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nahh .. he's saying a ban wouldn't violate our constitutional rights? I don't think speeding (at the risk of human life) equates to the dangers of .. home schooling?

I wasnt equating speeding to the dangers of home schooling. I was merely following their lines of logic. They claimed that homeschooling can not be banned as it would infringe on peoples right to "pursue happiness", so I also mentioned that therefore speeding can not be banned because it infringes upon my right to pursue happiness.

If banning speeding is not considered violating peoples rights (the right to pursue happiness) then why is homeschooling treated so completely differently? Why does one not fall under the definition of "pursuing happiness" while the other one does? Safety? But I thought it wasn't ok to sacrifice safety for liberty?

The real reason that speeding isnt considered a violation of peoples "right to pursue happiness" is this: People accept speed limits as necessary and do not consider speeding a guarenteed right. Similarly, if the majority of people accepted public schooling as necessary, they will also not consider homeschooling to be a guarenteed right. They will not consider it as violating any human rights nor the constitution. Homeschool is not a "right" any more than speeding or turning right at a red light is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, what I'm saying is that, while the banning of homeschooling should be opposed, banning it is not breaking the law akin to banning free speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If banning speeding is not considered violating peoples rights (the right to pursue happiness) then why is homeschooling treated so completely differently? Why does one not fall under the definition of "pursuing happiness" while the other one does? Safety? But I thought it wasn't ok to sacrifice safety for liberty?

Security, for liberty. Liberty (freedom under the law) is far safer than tyranny (force control by the State).

You can't sever the danger from your question and then ask the question without it because that is the answer. Speeding is a risk to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of others when the result of excessive speed is auto accidents. Homeschooling is not such a behavior. It's treated completely differently because it is completely different.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well no. You cant infringe on the rights of others. So you should have to obey government legislation that prevents people from stepping on other peoples rights. If we really followed he constitution, aside from said example, yes you would have the right to do what makes you happy. And before you give me examples of how that isnt correct, yes there are many laws that are directly unconstitutional.

Then, presumably they're all in the process of being overturned by the Supreme Court?

Or - is it possible that they're only unconstitutional in your opinion. As opposed to, say, current legal opinion.

In America it would be a human rights violation.

Then it already is a human rights violation, as the States already regulate it, and can deny homeschooling to anyone who doesn't follow state regulations.

Even still, why would America feel it should have to take in anyone who's had thier human rights violated?

Mostly because America ratified the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

90% of the world would be here.

Well, a chunk of it, at least. Normally, the chance of being granted asylum when living in a country in Western Europe is close to zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasnt equating speeding to the dangers of home schooling. I was merely following their lines of logic. They claimed that homeschooling can not be banned as it would infringe on peoples right to "pursue happiness", so I also mentioned that therefore speeding can not be banned because it infringes upon my right to pursue happiness.

If banning speeding is not considered violating peoples rights (the right to pursue happiness) then why is homeschooling treated so completely differently? Why does one not fall under the definition of "pursuing happiness" while the other one does? Safety? But I thought it wasn't ok to sacrifice safety for liberty?

The real reason that speeding isnt considered a violation of peoples "right to pursue happiness" is this: People accept speed limits as necessary and do not consider speeding a guarenteed right. Similarly, if the majority of people accepted public schooling as necessary, they will also not consider homeschooling to be a guarenteed right. They will not consider it as violating any human rights nor the constitution. Homeschool is not a "right" any more than speeding or turning right at a red light is.

Speeding violates the rights of others around you. Home schooling does not.

Edited by preacherman76
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, presumably they're all in the process of being overturned by the Supreme Court?

Or - is it possible that they're only unconstitutional in your opinion. As opposed to, say, current legal opinion.

Ha. Youd have to be under the assumption that the SC is always interested in upholding the constitution. No branch of government is really interested in obeying the constitution anymore.

The constitution is pretty basic. The only ones who say otherwise are the folks who dont like what it has to say.

Then it already is a human rights violation, as the States already regulate it, and can deny homeschooling to anyone who doesn't follow state regulations.

Unless of course those state regulations are unconstitutional. And of course they are.

Mostly because America ratified the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Then bring on the opressed. Or even better, maybe its time to go to war with Germany like we do with all the other freedom haters. Oh wait, they dont have any oil.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that it is protected by the BOR?

Read and contemplate the Ninth Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speeding violates the rights of others around you. Home schooling does not.

Speeding violates the rights of others around me? How so?

Speeding is a risk to the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of others when the result of excessive speed is auto accidents. Homeschooling is not such a behavior. It's treated completely differently because it is completely different.

Ok, fair enough. So rights can be taken away when they pose a threat to another's life. I'll keep that in mind. Is there anything else rights can be taken away for? Or is safety it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speeding violates the rights of others around me? How so?

Really?

Ok, fair enough. So rights can be taken away when they pose a threat to another's life. I'll keep that in mind. Is there anything else rights can be taken away for? Or is safety it?

Before you tell me you can take my gun from me cause you somehow think they are a danger to you, remember that we dont take everyones car away cause a few get caught speeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, fair enough. So rights can be taken away when they pose a threat to another's life. I'll keep that in mind. Is there anything else rights can be taken away for? Or is safety it?

A established right can only be taken on a individual level, and only after said individual has shown that they cant be responcible with that right.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A established right can only be taken on a individual level, and only after said individual has shown that they cant be responcible with that right.

If only that were still true.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can't really brainwash home schooled kids that don't go to public school, all the wonderfull things they are tought in schols, like calling 911 if parents are punishing you. among other things. what will happen to our country if a missbehaving kids looses his right to be imune from punishment, omg.

my friend's kid called cops 3 times on them cuz he was not getting what he wanted, nasty litte f..ck. he was thought that in school, and the sadest part is, no one tells him it is wrong, even cops, so he keeps doing it, and feels like he won, and has power over parents, and it is true

Parents should just call DCF themselves and stick his little ass in a foster home for a while. They can even have him committed to a psych ward, via the baker act. He can't legally sign himself out until 18. After a month or two of there...his ways will change. Sometimes kids do need tough love when they get that far out of line. They need a dose of the real world because they don't appreciate how good things actually are while living with mom and dad.

Edited by WoIverine
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha. Youd have to be under the assumption that the SC is always interested in upholding the constitution. No branch of government is really interested in obeying the constitution anymore.

In your opinion. Mine - not so much.

If all three independent branches of government really are out to get you, then you're pretty stuffed, I'd imagine. Best of luck with that.

The constitution is pretty basic. The only ones who say otherwise are the folks who dont like what it has to say.

I think it's obvious from just this thread that people's interpretation of the constitution into a legal framework wildly differs, regardless of how basic it is.

Unless of course those state regulations are unconstitutional. And of course they are.

I'm intrigued - why do you think that all three independent branches of government as well as the fifty states,are knowingly acting unconstitutionally?

Then bring on the opressed. Or even better, maybe its time to go to war with Germany like we do with all the other freedom haters. Oh wait, they dont have any oil.

I still suspect imminent preemptive regime change. I've recently seen several top secret CIA reports that German public school kids have rulers, protractors and compasses - which are all, obviously, weapons of Maths Construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion. Mine - not so much.

If all three independent branches of government really are out to get you, then you're pretty stuffed, I'd imagine. Best of luck with that.

I wish it was a matter of opinion. Today our government can spy on you, torcher you, indefinitly detain you, strike your home with a drone, and out right put a bullet in your head with no due process. Not only cant you show me in the constitution where they are granted these powers, but I can show you directly where it says they cant. And lets not even get into all the countries we bomb daily with no clear threat to Americans and no declaration of war provided by congress. Youd have to have a pretty wild imagination to believe the constitution is ok with any of this. And we are only scratching the surface.

I think it's obvious from just this thread that people's interpretation of the constitution into a legal framework wildly differs, regardless of how basic it is.

They have spent a great deal of time and effort to shape those differeing opinions. Thats cause they dont want you to believe it says what it says. I challange you to show me in the constitution how any single one of the points Ive made here where opinions can differ upon reading it. Best of luck with that.

I'm intrigued - why do you think that all three independent branches of government as well as the fifty states,are knowingly acting unconstitutionally?

The constitution restrains government power. They dont want to be restrained while flexing thier authority over the people. Much in the same way a dog doesnt want to be held back by a leash. Even though the leash helps to protect everyone around the animal. Power corupts, everytime, without fail.

I still suspect imminent preemptive regime change. I've recently seen several top secret CIA reports that German public school kids have rulers, protractors and compasses - which are all, obviously, weapons of Maths Construction.

Touche, LOL

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. It's something that the States have individually agreed to allow, to greater or lesser degrees. In California, for example, you need to be a registered private school, preferably with a teaching credential issued by the State of California.

Besides which - people are missing the point entirely.

Holder has two choices - either defend the position that homeschooling is not a fundamental human right or rubberstamping the entire population of Germany's eligibility for legal asylum within the US on the basis that their government's restrictions on home schooling are a human right's violation.

Plus every other country in the world following the German model.

It's all fun and games until 500 million immigrants arrive, citing homeschooling human right's violation as to why they can not be denied US residency.

Not strictly accurate Tiggs (although I agree with the thrust of the rest of your arguments)

You can Home-School in the UK, but there are checks and balances to ensure that the kids are reaching an expected level of education. It is banned (probably but unclear) in Spain, but that ban didn't stop me and my wife from home - schooling our daughter whilst between schools, had any attempt been made to do so then I certainly WOULD have threatened to bring a Violation of Human Rights case before the courts. In fact 24 European Countries allow homeschooling based on specific Regulations (as there should be).

I think that long - term home - schooling is more to do with Parents' own Ego and self - importance, much less to do with the welfare of their children, and even less to do with their Children integrating into a Society.

Is this the best thing for a child? In exceptional circumstances then most certainly it is, but for the vast majority of home - schooled kids then NO. IMO

Edited by keithisco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish it was a matter of opinion. Today our government can spy on you, torcher you, indefinitly detain you, strike your home with a drone, and out right put a bullet in your head with no due process. Not only cant you show me in the constitution where they are granted these powers, but I can show you directly where it says they cant.

...

They have spent a great deal of time and effort to shape those differeing opinions. Thats cause they dont want you to believe it says what it says. I challange you to show me in the constitution how any single one of the points Ive made here where opinions can differ upon reading it. Best of luck with that.

Challenge accepted. Let's start with infinite detention:

Article One Section Nine Clause Two:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

I read that as infinite detention is legal under the constitution under certain conditions. It was suspended during the civil war, for example, and immediately after Pearl Harbor.

Opinions can obviously differ as to whether a sustained terror campaign would count as a case of invasion. I don't recall the Japanese landing troops at Pearl Harbor, for example.

The constitution restrains government power. They dont want to be restrained while flexing thier authority over the people. Much in the same way a dog doesnt want to be held back by a leash. Even though the leash helps to protect everyone around the animal. Power corupts, everytime, without fail.

Interesting. So - basically - you believe all forms of American government, from Federal to State - are corrupt.

If that were true, then the Constitution's checks and balances have failed. I believe otherwise.

In the specific case of homeschooling, for example, I believe that the State is enforcing a child's right to receive a basic education, which protects them from the type of parents who have absolutely no intention of teaching their children anything.

You'll find that a child's right to education appears in all of the State constitutions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.