Parents' Rights

[Emsworth]

The decision, although unanimous, was unsound. The court's position was that the state law deprived parents of the "liberty" of educating their children as they desire, thereby violating the Fourteenth Amendment. It is doubtful whether the word "liberty" includes the "right" to educate one's children wherever one pleases, but even if we accept that it does, the court's argument is invalid. The Fourteenth Amendment does not say, no state shall deprive any person of liberty. It provides, no state shall deprive any person of liberty without due process of law. Since Oregon passed a law in this particular case, the deprivation of "liberty" was constitutionally permitted.

[Emsworth]

How is this not a blatant violation of substantive due process?

There is no such thing as substantive due process.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The law did not apply to Catholics alone, but to all children in Oregon. Therefore, no free exercise issue arises.

[Emsworth]

So then what protection do the liberties of minorities have against Democracy?

At the state level, all persons are guaranteed the rights secured by the first eight amendments to the Constitution. There are a variety of other guarantees, such as the prohibition of bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, contained in other parts of the Constitution.
 

The KKK didn't support the law because they love public schools.  This law was a very obvious intent to deprive Catholics of personal liberties, which included both free exercise and liberty in general.

The intent of any law is irrelevant; only the effect thereof is important. Some laws are driven by principles, others by politics; some by tolerance, others by bigotry; some by moral views, others by convenience. However, bad intentions do not violate the Constitution.