Posted on 03/06/2008 7:32:18 AM PST by edcoil
LOS ANGELES, March 5, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com)
Thousands of homeschoolers in California are left in legal limbo by an appeals court ruling that homeschooling is not a legal option in the state and that a family who has homeschooled all their children for years must enrol their two youngest in state or private schools. Justice H. Walter Croskey in a written opinion said, "California courts have held that under provisions in the Education Code, parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children."
The sweeping February 29th ruling says that California law requires "persons between the ages of six and eighteen" to be in "public full-time day school," or a "private full-time day school" or "instructed by a tutor who holds a valid state teaching credential for the grade being taught".
Those that publicly, on open forums that wish for death and destruction of innocents and conservatives have no credibility.
And in the same vein, time for EnigmaticAnomaly to develop a hideously painful case of hemorrhoids.
Oh wait, were you just being sarcastic when you wished death and destruction on my home? If so, sorry.
Michael Frazier
California is in complete control of unions and special interests and they will resist such a law, unfortunately, I think successfully.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
The Judge should take out his copy of the constitution a little more often.
LOL
So, I guess that flowery bit of crap mean that you don't know how to answer the question?
Michael Frazier
Apparently statements made tongue-in-cheek escape you, too. I am sorry for that, sir.
Just to be clear: even the lower court whose ruling was overturned, acknowledged that "the home schooling the children were receiving was 'lousy,' 'meager,' and 'bad.'"
Nor should we ignore the genesis of this case, which had to do with accusations of abuse by the father ... made by one of the kids.
So ... it's best to look to the whole story here.
OBTW: if you actually read The Court's Opinion, you will discover an interesting thing: they're basing their ruling on long-established California laws. It's the opposite of "judicial activism."
Now, if you want to make this a springboard to change California law, that would be great.
But the mouth-foamers hereabouts seem bound and determined to excoriate the court for following the laws AS WRITTEN. I guess some folks only disagree with judicial activism when it goes the other way.
That "flowery bit of crap" as you so eloquently put it, answers the question completely. I am sorry that you cannot discern the answer from what I have posted...
That "flowery bit of crap" as you so eloquently put it, answers the question completely. I am sorry that you cannot discern the answer from what I have posted...
On his web-site, B. Hussein Obama admits to wanting the gov. to have your children from 0-5 also.
It's true that I sometimes suffer from an inability to recognize humor. Sorry, slick, but you just can't excuse statements wishing ill on people who don't threaten you as “tongue-in-cheek and then try to blame the people you are knocking for not understanding your wit. Weak, very weak.
Michael Frazier
LOL. As I said before, this may have some impact on homeschooler's in CA, but this article is seriously slanted. Freepers would do their homework and check sources for the article if it were something they didn't want to believe. But, if the story fits their world view, then rant on!
What's amazing is that the ranting about this ruling ignores the fact that the Court ruled strictly according to the laws as written, coupled with long-standing precedent. There's no judicial activism involved.
But ... just as in so many other cases ... there are folks who would rather rant than change the laws.
“Everyone remember how important it is to keep decadent, Leftist judges off the courts—especially the Supreme Court—and therefore to defeat the Democrats in the Presidential election.”
Getting a Republican in the WH isn’t going to guarantee conservative judges...and by “conservative”, I mean pro-original intent, pro-constitutional federalism, anti-foreign law social conservatives...NOT social conservatives who also support more big government and centralization of power.
We need a few conservative Senators willing to filibuster Obama, Clinton or McCain judicial nominees until we get Real American judges - not socialists.
adverb 1. in a bantering fashion; "he spoke to her banteringly" [syn: banteringly] 2. not seriously; "I meant it facetiously" [syn: facetiously]
If a decision like this is enforced, the only option besides relocating is civil disobedience...and then leaving the state if they try to take the children.
It reminds me of a few 20th century totalitarian regimes.
“What’s amazing is that the ranting about this ruling ignores the fact that the Court ruled strictly according to the laws as written, coupled with long-standing precedent. There’s no judicial activism involved. “
NO, not really. There is other settled law regarding homeschooling that this judge totally ignored. Homeschooling is legal in this state.
The problem is that this family has had problems with the CPS for the last 20 years. This case was more about the abuse than it was about homeschooling. The judge MADE it to be about homeschooling. That is activism in my book. He also BANNED them from the ISP that they were using, that would make anyone automatically illegal right away. He made them illegal, by his own order. No activism, yeah right.
What troubles me as a homeschooler is that the private school option is also used by ANY private school in this state. I wonder, is this to eradicate ALL private schooling in this state? Requiring teaching credentials would effect all private schools because in California it is not required to teach in a private school.
This one smells to heaven of activism.
If you have, say so, and I will respond to your comments. Otherwise, I will wait until you read the opinion, so that we can have a real conversation.
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.