Free Republic

And his hypocrisy is clearly evident in his condemning of King George in the original draft of the Declaration for continuing the practice of slavery of which he was a practitioner and beneficiary himself. That passage was removed during the debate over the Declaration.

You have to keep in mind the times in which these were written. To treat them as if they were written today is a mistake which would make anyone of that era seem quite conservative.

I could if he was buying them with money he didn't have.

Thank you for exposing the truth about Jefferson. He was a remarkable writer who could express the thoughts and beliefs of his day in a clear, succinct and imaginative manner but the thoughts he expressed were, for the most part, taken from others. He reminds me of many of the politicians of today who can be great speakers and look appealing on television but have little else to offer. The written word was the television of the 1800's so it's no surprise that Jefferson ended up where he did. The more I read about Jefferson, the more I realize his limitations, character flaws and his true lack of leadership ability. He was unquestionably overrated. It's a shame that greater men like Hamilton and Adams were overshadowed by him. I guess it just shows that the public at large was no less superficial and gullible as it is today.

No we never did break away from it. Just look at the Kennedy's.

Thanks. I knew you'd come around ; ) I was thinking we should discuss something that we can both agree on but then that wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

It not only sounds to me but it is, in fact, referring to the U.S. Constitution, specifically the 10th amendment, prohibiting certain powers from being exercised by states. It has nothing to do with granting authority to the states, only with restricting states from exercising their authority. The U.S. Constitution is moot on public education, doesn't prohibit Massachusetts from exercising its authority and therefore has no bearing on the issue.

I happen to agree with the Massachusetts Constitution when it states that an educated public is "NECESSARY for the preservation of their rights and liberties." It says "necessary", not "desirable", not "adviseable" but "necessary"! If the education of the public is "necessary" and if the government is, as I believe, primarily entrusted with preserving our "rights and liberties", then it is the duty of the government not only to help but to insure that each citizen is being educated to some extent.

Here are your words: "...perhaps the Mass. constitution exceeds the authority granted to the States by the federal Constitution". That sounds to me like you're claiming that the Federal Constitution is granting rights to the states and that the states are dependent on the Federal government for those rights.

Nothing you've presented here places the U.S. Constitution in conflict with the Massachusetts Constitution. I certainly don't believe that "It takes a village..." crap but there are certain situations when the state has to take some responsibility. Certainly when parents abuse their children, the state must step in. And if John Adams was correct when he wrote in the Massachusetts Constitution that education "among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties", then the state has a clear responsibility here to insure that parents are providing some form of adequate education to their children.

I already quoted the relevant passages days ago. You can read them yourself.

You seem to forget that this country is a union of states each with its own rights to govern as it sees fit. Your claim that the U.S. Constitution grants rights to the states shows your ignorance of Constitutional law. The U.S. Constitution claims certain rights that take precedence over state law but the states are not dependent on the Federal Constitution to grant their rights to them. The Federal Constitution says nothing about public education because the founding fathers clearly and properly felt it was a concern of the states. The U.S. Constitution is irrelevant in the Bryant case.

But you ignore any constitutional authority that doesn't concur with your perceptions of how things should be so you damn John Adams and anyone else who disagrees with you. Stop claiming constitutional rights that don't exist!

Getting back to this situation involving the Bryants, the school system is not the one looking for test results or even asking the Bryants to take the test. It is DSS that wants those things because a long time ago the Bryants lost legal custody of their children.

Gee you have them pegged pretty well! These so-called "constitutionalists" are ignoring the one constitution that really matters in this case, the Massachusetts Constitution. That document, written by John Adams (no lesser a founding father than Jefferson), clearly sets the foundation for today's laws governing the interests of the state in the education of the public. I doubt any of these "constitutionalists" have ever read it.

Hey I'm not defending Kerry or the liberals here but when was the last time you thought your position was the wrong one?

Isn't it the Democrats who always criticize the Republicans for trying to use litmus tests in appointing justices. Kerry sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

In addition, how do you expect a legislature to "cherish" or "encourage" without legislating? That's all a legislature can do.

I made no judgment about their motives behind their thirst for publicity. You accused me of making an assumption but apparently, you have now accepted the fact that they are looking for publicity.

Regarding the Constitution:

First, you ignored the word "inculcate" which I think carries a slightly stronger connotation than the words you selected to highlight.

Second, I would agree that the passage is open to interpretation and in a liberal state like Massachusetts, has, I assume, been liberally interpreted by the courts. The laws put in place to "encourage" all citizens to be educated are normally obeyed by the vast majority of citizens. Filing minimal annual education plans is hardly an infringement of citizens' rights. It's only when citizens refuse to cooperate (there's that word again), that the government sees fit to press harder. In this case, the state has acted a bit heavy handed, especially as evidenced by the choice of words of the social worker from DSS but that's what happens when you paint people (and governments) into a corner. My understanding is that DSS is backing down now. I don't believe the children were ever in danger of being physically taken away by the state over this which is why the parents are willing to let it go this far.

I happen to be a proud product of a Massachusetts public school system.

I have found that most of us conservatives find the word "cooperate" when used in references to dealing with the government as totally reprehensible so I'm not surprised by your first statement.

If these people are not looking for publicity and "want to be left alone", why was the news media there at their house ready to photograph and report on the situation? How did they hear about it before the incident actually happened? These are not assumptions.

And in response to your last comment, I submit the following excerpt from the Massachusetts State Constitution written by John Adams (one of our greatest founding fathers and defenders of our liberties):

Wisdom, and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties; and as these depend on spreading the opportunities and advantages of education in the various parts of the country, and among the different orders of the people, it shall be the duty of legislatures and magistrates, in all future periods of this commonwealth, to cherish the interests of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries of them; especially the university at Cambridge, public schools and grammar schools in the towns; to encourage private societies and public institutions, rewards and immunities, for the promotion of agriculture, arts, sciences, commerce, trades, manufactures, and a natural history of the country; to countenance and inculcate the principles of humanity and general benevolence, public and private charity, industry and frugality, honesty and punctuality in their dealings; sincerity, good humor, and all social affections, and generous sentiments among the people.

You are on the right track. These parents refused long ago to file education plans with the local school district. Had they chosen to cooperate, they could have avoided testing altogether since the local school district has very minimal requirements for these plans and would have allowed any one of various methods of assessment. Because these parents want to make a point and get publicity, they refuse to cooperate in any way, shape or form. As a result, custody of their children has been turned over to DSS. That happened a while ago. As of now, as the article states, the local superintendent wasn't even aware of this latest action. That's because the school system has in its possession a valid education plan that was filed by the children's custodian, DSS. The school district is satisfied. DSS is requiring the testing, not the local school district so this latest issue is between the family and DSS. These parents may be providing their children with a wonderful education. Unfortunately part of that education includes continual lessons in stupidity and spitefulness that can't be good for any child.

You are ignoring the fact that the state has custody (right or wrong) of these kids. Unless a higher court can show that granting that custody was flawed, the state can now dictate what kind of education they get. The state has already won the first battle getting a court to give it custody. That's why I believe the parents went too far in this case. If that hadn't happened, the state wouldn't be FORCING education on the family. So the issue here is whether the state should have custody and not whether it should be dictating, or FORCING education on them.

You'll have to ask TaxRelief. That was his word I was quoting:

To: Notwithstanding

What on earth looks nutty about this family?
They look like a perfectly normal family.
What don't you like? The dog?


36 posted on 06/13/2003 3:53 PM EDT by TaxRelief