|
What does that mean? Well, first of all, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. What I know I've learned through reading at the friendly public library and here on the Internet. I've read enough to know that I'd bet my bottom dollar I'm right But, ask a civil rights lawyer for a second opinion just to make sure I'm on the right page. The way I see it is that when something is a Fundamental Right that means that baring a compelling state interest, no one, not even the Supreme Court can violate that right. Now, what is a compelling state interest? Well, let's say I don't want my son to go to school so that he can work to help support the family. In that case the school department and the state does have the right to interfere with my parental rights because a compelling state interest exist that states that my son must be educated at least until the age of 16. But , what If I'm not happy with the way my son is being educated in the school? What if I don't like the curriculum? What if I don't like the teachers? What if I live in a town where there are a lot of violent kids going to school? What if I don't like the condition of the school building? What if I don't like the color of the Principal's tie? You see it really doesn't matter. As long as I am willing to educate my child at home, then I don't need a reason. And, it goes even further.... A Fundamental Right means that it is "our" right and "our" decision as parents to direct, control, and otherwise choose how, where and when our children will be educated. This right does not belong to a Superintendent, not to a School Committee or a School Board and certainly not to a Principal. This right has been tried in the courts already. As far back as Meyer v Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 67 L. Ed. 1042 (1923), Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925) , Farington v Tokushige (1927) and in People v Levinsen, 90 NE 2d 213 (Ill. Sup. CT. 1950), The courts have made it very clear that this right must not be violated and for various reasons beyond freedom of religion. In People v Levinson, the court reasoned: "The object is that all children shall be educated, not that they shall be educated in any particular way or place.".........."The law is not made to punish those who provide their children instruction equal or superior to that obtainable in public schools. It is made for the parent who fails or refuses to properly educate his child." Meyer v Nebraska had to do with a State Statute, which prohibited the teaching of a foreign language to schoolchildren. In that case the court made it very clear that The Constitution would not tolerate the regimentation and standardization of young minds by government officials. In Pierce v Society of Sisters (1925), Farington v Tokushige (1927) and in Meyer the Supreme Court affirmed the authority of the states to compel attendance at public or private schools. But at the same time, however, it declared t hat the states may neither abolish private education nor regulate it so severely that private instruction would effectively turn into public school in a different setting. So, if the right of parents to control and direct the education of their children is so "Fundamentally" clear why doesn't everybody know this? Well, they do at the schools. They just don't tell us. They like us to think they have this "power" over us. Maybe it's because they know that if enough of us pull our kids out they'll take a few h its in the pocket. They get state aid for every kid that goes to school and they don't want to lose a dime. I couldn't possibly imagine that they don't know we have this right. Should we believe that they know about it and are violating it anyway? Or, do we assume that they are ignorant of the law and didn't realize they were violating our rights? |