Posted on 11/07/2005 9:00:26 AM PST by magisterium
The survey case is even easier. Parents need to learn to "just say NO" when the school asks the child to participate in a voluntary survey.
The consent letter is reproduced in the Circuit Court opinion. I can tell you that I would never sign a consent letter like that without first reading the survey for myself.
I disagree with the holding inasmuch as it reaches way beyond what is required to reach the result. The parents consented, the survey was voluntary.
I agree with your statements for the most part. I just don't think that the Court's legal reasoning was faulty in THIS case.
Good point.
I opted out my children from anything related to sex education/questionable health issues, as they found ways to integrate sex questions at every opportunity.
I also had extenuating circumstances happen to my daughter (and her Kindergarten classmates) by her teacher and a school counselor, which I won't go into here....suffice it to say, I (and numerous other parents at the time) had plenty of reasons to be extremely suspicious regarding their intentions.
Congress hasn't done their constitutional duty more than a half dozen time in the past ten years. They are too busy buying votes with pork barrel projects and money giveaway schemes disguised as "entitlements" (as if a crack whore squirting out babies every 10 months is ENTITLED to my money) to give a rat's butt about doing what is right.
Did you read the court's own summary of the decision? The conclusion itself, not the avenues used to arrive at it, is properly at issue. This conclusion will be used as a wedge to alter every fundamental aspect of parenting acknowledged by every single society that ever existed. Well, almost every society. I concede that Pol Pot's experiment in particular, and the collectivist childrearing of communists in general, are exceptions. But, I assume we *don't* want to go in that direction!
Here's the court's summary:In summary, we hold that 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” and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right. 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 only that the parents 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. We further hold that a psychological survey is a reasonable state action pursuant to legitimate educational as well as health and welfare interests of the state. Accordingly, the parent-appellants have failed to state a federal claim upon which relief may be granted. The decision of the district court is affirmed.
How can this wretched misuse of judicial authority be condoned in a free society?
It is past time to break up the 9th circus. The GOP had better start leading the fight or they will face some serious defeats in the years ahead.
I agree. It's my responsibility, as the parent of a child enrolled in the public school system, to gain a full understanding of what I'm consenting to (when my consent is requested). The fact that the school was asking for consent to begin with would've made me question the content of the 'study'.
And I declare the 9th circus court of Schlamiels unconstitutional.
Yes and I agree that there are two issues. The actual case didn't seem to have much merit as it was voluntary and the project was halted when parents complained. That is how school systems are supposed to work.
Instead of being satisfied with the result, the parents decided to sue anyway. That is where they are guilty of creating a self-inflicted wound.
The court only ruled that a fundamental CONSTITUTIONAL right doesn't exist in this case. A pretty good case was made for this.
This best way to deal with this would be for the state legislatures to codify the restrictions when schools are dealing with sexual material.
My suspicion is that these restrictions are already in place but they weren't satisfactory to the plaintiffs so they tried to get a constitutional ruling rather than trying to get the laws changed.
Well, I disagree that no fundamental Constitutional right is involved. In one sense you're right, I suppose, in that the Constitution does not directly address the issue. But that's the point! The Constitution does not address, and was never meant to address or anticipate, every single permutation of every single issue.
It's silence in this matter presupposes an understanding on the part of the framers that parental rights derive essentially from the Natural Law, to which nearly all the framers subscribed, and such rights are so obvious that they need not be explicitly delineated in the fundamental law of a republic.
The basic right of a parent to raise children in the moral and religious worldview they see fit A) trumps ANY "right" of the state, real or contrived, to intrude on the same under the guise of "neutral" curriculum and B) is, in any event, certainly protected in the First Amendment right to freedom of religion and the "free exercise thereof."
To the extent that there IS a real constitutional issue at stake here, it certainly revolves around the First Amendment. And any objective court would consider the case of the parents to be a slam dunk.
Well, I disagree that no fundamental Constitutional right is involved. In one sense you're right, I suppose, in that the Constitution does not directly address the issue. But that's the point! The Constitution does not address, and was never meant to address or anticipate, every single permutation of every single issue.Aren't we the side complaining about judicial activism? If the Constitution does not address the issue, then the Court needs to decide if federal law has been violated. If it has not, then the plaintiffs have no case. They can go to state court, or drop it.
-Eric
The headline could have easily read:
"Homosexuals and pedophiles rejoice at the news that their agenda of indoctrinating school-aged children is approved by the courts!"
The only way I could conclude that the proper procedure was followed would be if the gubmint properly informed the parents that their small children would be asked questions about sex.
They omitted any reference to sex on purpose, IMO, to hide the true nature of the questionairre. I can't blame any parent for suspecting that sex questions would be asked of 1st, 3rd or 5th graders. Go and read the decision to find out what the consent actually said and compare that to the questions actually asked. They're both in footnotes as I recall.
The survey was also stopped after parents found out more details about it and protested. That indicates the school district knew that what it had done was wrong.
Well, in one sense, it *is* judicial activism on the part of the federal courts to inflict federal authority on a case that really is a state matter. Nothing in the federal Constitution deals with the authority of a state in matters involving religion or schools.
That having been said, it is a regrettable fact of life that, in reality, the federal courts *have* inflicted themselves on the states in these and other issues not found in the body of the Constitution, and they have been at it for years. Since they have arrogated to themselves an authority to interpret the First Amendment as applying to all levels of government, then the principle that the First Amendment assumes with regard to Congress should *at least*, as a matter of some kind of consistency, be applied to other governmental agencies. Given that disclaimer, there would, relatively speaking, be *less* judicial activism for the court to have said: "Since the case involves matters of conscience, often of a religious/moral nature, the intrusion into the same by a state-run agency (the school system) is an infringement on the basic rights of the parents under the First Amendment. The State is hereby overruled." That is deciding the case on its merits.
As long as the federal judiciary misinterprets the basic phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," to mean that the feds can intrude on religious issues at any other non-Congressional level, we are going to have this problem forever.
I would rather take the chance that a given state or locality tried to push such measures as we find here through, and its own courts botch natural law, than to have the status quo. Then, at least, the people of the state or locality would have, both in theory and in practice, a much better chance of overruling their courts. At the very least, they could exercise their rights more freely in the marketplace of ideas, and move elsewhere, where freedom in religious matters is better respected. As it is now, though, where are people supposed to go, and how diluted is their ability to redress their grievances, when the federal Leviathan rears its ugly head?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.