Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Oh Yeah One Thing 33

Journal by pudge

That Ninth Circuit decision last week said: "We hold there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents 'to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs' ... We conclude only that the parents are possess of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on [sex education] to their students in any forum or manner they select."

So if a school tells me that they will be teaching my child about sex, I cannot pull them out? That's clearly unlawful.

Or the school can teach my child about sex without informing the public? That, too, is clearly unlawful.

The right to prevent the schools from teaching my child about sex is necessarily implicit: I have the right as a taxpayer to know what they are teaching, and when, and I have the right to remove my child from school, at any time.

And I have the right to say Judge Steven Reinhardt is a moron.

And it's yet one more reason my children won't ever be public school students.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oh Yeah One Thing More

Oh Yeah One Thing

Comments Filter:
  • So if a school tells me that they will be teaching my child about sex, I cannot pull them out? That's clearly unlawful.

    I can't see anything in the Constitution which says so. Also, I think his meaning is that you cannot exempt them from that part of the school while expecting to receive the other parts, which seems more reasonable. Would I have a right to insist that my child is excepted from any part of the IT teaching which uses Microsoft products, too?

    Or the school can teach my child about sex withou

    • The constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about public schooling or sex education. What it DOES say is this:

      Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      and this:

      Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      So the Supreme Court (or Congress, or the President) has no constitutional basis
      • The constitution doesn't say ANYTHING about public schooling or sex education.

        Indeed. Hence my conclusion - and the judge's - that it does not mandate particular conduct on the school's part.

        So the Supreme Court (or Congress, or the President) has no constitutional basis on which to declare such things illegal or legal.

        True - they do, however, have a basis for declaring whether or not something is prohibited by the Constitution; in this case, education policy is clearly "reserved to the States respect

        • Your comment was unclear to me in its intent. On the one hand, yes, the state could dictate something about education, but it's primarily a local issue. If the parent's in a community don't like what their school is teaching, they should be able to get it changed.

          As a last resort, there should be no problem with parents pulling their kid out of such a school for whatever reason they deem necessary. There are other choices, notably private schools and home schooling.
    • I don't think they are obliged to give you advance warning of what will be taught, though.

      They generally are if you ask, but not if you just passively toss the kids out the door in the morning. You can glean most of the cirriculum by looking at your state's requirements, but you're also free to set up meetings with your child's teachers in order to go over the units that will be taught during the school year. Teachers right out all this stuff and get it approved, and you're free to go make your own copies
      • The information is easily accessible from the district's offices, as well as the state BOE, and if you choose not to access it, that's your choice.

        In this specific example, that's begging the question: the fact that this survey being given to the kids asked graphic questions about sex was hidden from the parents. Notices went out that mentioned the survey, but it excluded the fact that graphic questions about sex would be asked. And it was not listed anywhere in the district offices, or anywhere else the
    • I can't see anything in the Constitution which says so.

      Ninth Amendment, clearly.

      Also, I think his meaning is that you cannot exempt them from that part of the school while expecting to receive the other parts

      I absolutely can. What I can't do is expect them to get a passing grade for the portions I remove them for.

      Would I have a right to insist that my child is excepted from any part of the IT teaching which uses Microsoft products, too?

      Absolutely, yes. Of course. You're the parent. But you can't expect

    • I can't see anything in the Constitution which says so. Also, I think his meaning is that you cannot exempt them from that part of the school while expecting to receive the other parts, which seems more reasonable. Would I have a right to insist that my child is excepted from any part of the IT teaching which uses Microsoft products, too?

      I can't remember what the actual wording of the law is, but in Texas parents do have the legal right to remove their children from any portion of the instruction they d

      • Screw Texas law: the Ninth Amendment gives the absolute right to remove your child from school at any time, for any reason. There's simply no question about this. Otherwise it's what we call "kidnapping" in this part of the world.

        • Got to add that to my draft "letter to school officials informing them of homeschooling." It's a cute little document I never intend to send that proves an absolute right to homeschool without any regulation or direction from the government from the Bill of Rights alone.

  • Really? You think there is a Constitutional right for you to be informed when and how a school is teaching your child about sex? And you think there is a Constitutional right for you to decide when and how your child learns about sex?

    And you think that for a "school [to] teach my child about sex without informing the public" is unconstitutional?

    Point to that part of the Constitution, please.

    We'll wait.

    The funny thing is that the nutso Right has been describing this inability to find a brand-new righ

    • Point to that part of the Constitution, please.

      Law in the United States is not limited to what is defined in the Constitution. There's the United States Code [gpoaccess.gov], which stipulates what's legal and what isn't. The trick is that there are items in the Code that may be unconstitutional, but managed to be codified under the noses of the People. It happens all the time.

      The funny thing is that the nutso Right has been describing this inability to find a brand-new right in the Constitution as the work of an "activ
      • Point to the law, then, that the judge was ignoring.

        We'll wait.

        • Point to the law, then, that the judge was ignoring.

          We'll wait.

          I'm sure you will. I'll not let you wait long, though:

          http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/209-25.htm [mass.gov]
          (Talking about marriage, refers to husband AND wife. Most of the laws in the Massachusetts General Code refer to "husband" and "wife" in the same paragraph. This implies a certain understanding of what "marriage" means.

          http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/207-11.htm [mass.gov]
          (This is one that homosexual residents outside Massachusetts don't like)
          • I'm uninterested in your changing the subject (I skimmed past what you wrote about Massachusetts). Point to the law regarding teaching kids about sex in school.
            • I'm uninterested in your changing the subject (I skimmed past what you wrote about Massachusetts).

              I was talking about activist judges, and used Judge Margaret Marshall as an example. YOU asked to see the law(s) that Marshall had ignored. I provided them.

              You want to know what the laws are, go search for them. I'm not your paralegal.
              • Pudge wrote about the Ninth Circuit ruling on schools and sex.

                I queried him about that ruling and the Constitution: "Point to that part of the Constitution, please."

                You responded directly to that phrase with "Law in the United States is not limited to what is defined in the Constitution."

                I then invited you to point to the law, if you prefer, that you thought was relevant.

                Now I guess by telling me you think I should look it up myself that you are saying you don't really care which law it is, but you're s

                • I queried him about that ruling and the Constitution: "Point to that part of the Constitution, please."

                  Which I did. The Ninth Amendment clearly protects the right of parents to remove their children from schools at any time, for any reason. Else it's called state-sponsored kidnapping.

                  You want judges to rule your way and you don't care whether those rulings are rooted in the Constitution and the law or not.

                  I can't speak for him, but no, this is entirely, 100 percent, about civil liberties that I firmly bel
                • Now I guess by telling me you think I should look it up myself that you are saying you don't really care which law it is, but you're sure there is one. Which is my point. You want judges to rule your way and you don't care whether those rulings are rooted in the Constitution and the law or not.

                  No, that's not true at all. I don't know if there are any laws regarding the subject matter of sex-ed classes. As far as I can tell, that's left largely to the school system.

                  What I expect the judicial system to do

        • Rights don't come from laws.

          • Yes, but rights are recognized by laws. The Ninth Amendment is very broad when it comes to recognizing such rights, especially parental rights.

            • Right. My point was that rights don't come solely from laws or legal codes, and was intended to reinforce your previously made point that the Ninth Amendment acknowledges this. Asserting that a right not found in the Constitution is a right is not legal activism; it's simply asserting the Ninth Amendment.

            • And personal privacy rights, including abortion rights.

              Right?

              • And personal privacy rights, including abortion rights.

                Read the Ninth Amendment lately?

                There are generally two ways to interpret the Ninth. The original interpretation is basically that it was a means to prevent the government from taking more authority than it was granted. This interpretation protects parental rights as I've discussed, and yet does not necessarily allow for abortion rights, because the government clearly had an interest in protecting innocent life already. This is obviously the interpre

              • We live in a strange land, indeed, when society believes that personal privacy rights give one the right to kill a human being in the womb, but yet does not believe, on the whole, that personal privacy rights give someone the right to indoctrinate his children in a legal religion.

                • Really hate to "me too" or "right on" post without adding much, but that's exactly what I was stuck by as well, the absurdity of that position as well.
    • You think there is a Constitutional right for you to be informed when and how a school is teaching your child about sex?

      Absolutely.

      And you think there is a Constitutional right for you to decide when and how your child learns about sex?

      Absolutely squared.

      And you think that for a "school [to] teach my child about sex without informing the public" is unconstitutional?

      No. But it is illegal. I didn't say that was unconstitutional. It should be: we should write government-in-sunshinie into the Constitution.

      Th

  • Cue the misinformed comments based on the ludicrous assumption that pudge won't teach his children about sex!

Slashdot Top Deals

Your program is sick! Shoot it and put it out of its memory.

Close