[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Fricking Congress needs to do their constitutional duty and start impeaching these filthy judges.

[indcons]

I think this comment from the article pretty much sums it all up: "The 9th Circuit, always the laughingstock of the federal judiciary as it is, has really outdone itself this time."

[magisterium]

I you don't want to read the whole thing, you can cut to the chase and scroll down to the bottom page of the "decision." It says it all. Yikes!

[T.Smith]

Mark for later reading and sharing with other parents...

[lawdude]

In the words of Peter, Paul and Mary...

"When will they ever learn...? When will they evvver learn?"

[Red Badger]

Does this make it "STAR-REY DECISIS"?..........

[Eagle of Liberty]

So what is the new title for a Parent? Am I now just a government donor? Do I get an hourly wage for babysitting the government's children?

[Cboldt]

Links below to the Palmdale case and relevant Supreme Court precedent, etc.

The opinion is by Judge Reinhardt. Reinhardt is no friend of the Republic, that's for sure. He finds the second amendment to be a collective right in Sliveira v. Lockyer.

Here are Silveira case links, including legal briefs, and FR thread at the time the case was handed down. The SCOTUS denied certiori, so Silveira is the law of the land out in the 9th Circuit.

But back to the matter of asking children probing personal questions of a sexual nature ...

Meyer v. Nebraska. 262 US 390 (1923)
Pierce v. Society of Sisters. 268 US 510 (1925)
Fields v. Palmdale School Dist., -- F.3d- (9th Cir. 2005) <- The stinker
See also http://www.confirmthem.com/?p=1861 <- Survey questions listed

Fields v. Palmdale Sch. Dist., 271 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (C.D. Cal. 2003) <- Case below Summary of 271 F. Supp. 2d 1217 follows ...

Parents sued school district, alleging violations of their federal and state constitutional rights to privacy, deprivation of their civil rights, and negligence. After obtaining written parental consent, the school mental health counselor distributed a sexually explicit survey to children. However, the parents were not aware of the subject matter, and claimed that, had they known the content of the survey, they would not have consented. held: For school district. Although parents have a constitutionally protected interest in education and rearing of their children, the court dismissed this case because the Fourteenth Amendment does not protect this specific circumstance.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3994/is_200404/ai_n9352196

[nicmarlo]

How'd the 9th Circus get around this?:


Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA)
(known as the Hatch Amendment)

The Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) (20 U.S.C. §1232h; 34 CFR Part 98) applies to programs that receive funding from the U.S. Department of Education (ED). PPRA is intended to protect the rights of parents and students in two ways:

It seeks to ensure that schools and contractors make instructional materials available for inspection by parents if those materials will be used in connection with an ED-funded survey, analysis, or evaluation in which their children participate; and

It seeks to ensure that schools and contractors obtain written parental consent before minor students are required to participate in any ED-funded survey, analysis, or evaluation that reveals information concerning:

1. Political affiliations;

2. Mental and psychological problems potentially embarrassing to the student and his/her family;

3. Sex behavior and attitudes;

4. Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior;

5. Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;

6. Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers; or

7. Income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program).

Parents or students who believe their rights under PPRA may have been violated may file a complaint with ED by writing the Family Policy Compliance Office. Complaints must contain specific allegations of fact giving reasonable cause to believe that a violation of PPRA occurred.

For additional information or technical assistance, you may call (202) 260-3887 (voice). Individuals who use TDD may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339. Or you may contact us at the following address:

Family Policy Compliance Office
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20202-4605

For more information:
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ppra/index.html


*******

....Consent before students are required to submit to a survey that concerns one or more of the following protected areas ("protected information survey") if the survey is funded in whole or in part by a program of the U.S. Department of Education (ED)-

1. Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or student's parent;
2. Mental or psychological problems of the student or student's family;
3. Sex behavior or attitudes;
4. Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, or demeaning behavior;
5. Critical appraisals of others with whom respondents have close family relationships;
6. Legally recognized privileged relationships, such as with lawyers, doctors, or ministers;
7. Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or parents; or
8. Income, other than as required by law to determine program eligibility.

Receive notice and an opportunity to opt a student out of -

1. Any other protected information survey, regardless of funding;

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ppra/modelnotification.html

******

APRIL 2002

The following document presents a general explanation of the recent changes to FERPA and PPRA made by Congress. It also provides a general description of the two U.S. Supreme Court cases involving FERPA. The Department will issue guidance and/or regulations to provide the public with interpretations of these changes.

http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/hottopics/ht04-10-02.html

[Great Caesars Ghost]

In Germany they've more or less accepted that they can't control what the kids are taught, and that home schooling is child abuse.

[dinoparty]

I agree with the outcome of this case. If every individual parent could decide exactly what his kids are to be taught in school, public schools would be even more ineffectual than they are now. However, I'm sure that if the parents had been objecting to the teaching of morals and patriotism in schools, the 9th Circus would have invented a right of parents to shield their kids from such "dangerous" lessons.

[tomahawk]

Children belong to the State, to be indoctrinated as the State, ACLU, Planned Barrenhood see fit.

[msnimje]

Stalin would be so proud of them.

[AbeKrieger]

of the people, by the people, for the people

NOT in spite of the people.

[sheana]

You no longer have a Constitutional right to your property, money (taxes), or children. Why isn't everyone in this country revolting? We threw tea in the harbor over alot less.

[Always Right]

It takes Village People to raise a family:

[FourtySeven]

If parents don't have the right to determine what's appropraite material for their own children in public schools, then property taxes should be no more, as the last vestage of "property tax rationale" has now been abrogated.

If the 9th Circuit still want's "public" schools, then they should also have abolished property taxes, and made only those parents who send their kids to such schools pay for their education. That would be only fair.

Even before this ruling, the whole issue of property tax was a sticking point for me, being single with no children. Why should I have to pay for someone elses' kid's schooling? And substandard schooling at that!

[DJ MacWoW]

ping

[Niteranger68]

Wouldn't this kill Michael Newdow's whole argument?

[sasafras]

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.