Parents' Rights

[A18]

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

[Ebowed]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v._Society_of_Sisters

The Oregon law was obviously terrible by any standard, but I do not believe it was the job of the Supreme Court to strike it down; thus, I would say that the decision was constitutionally unsound.  It takes away the states' right to make decisions about education standards on its own.

But the state law was really terrible, and perhaps there was a better justification in the constitution to strike it down other than the "right to privacy."  I am not aware of one, however.

[A18]

The ruling was utter bunk. How fitting that it was delivered by perhaps the the most activist conservative justice of all time.

[Max Power]

Constitutionally unsound. Although the law was a really pathetic law, the court  should not have struck down the law. The court made a terrible move there, and the "right to privacy" does not exist, unfortunately for us. Plus, there is no  right to an education provided by the state (meaning government).

[opebo]

The court made a terrible move there, and the "right to privacy" does not exist, unfortunately for us.

Of course there is a right to privacy, Max Power - only an activist Republican using the constitution for toilet paper would deny it.

That said, what does the right to privacy have to do with parents' rights?

[Ebowed]

That said, what does the right to privacy have to do with parents' rights?

It has to do with parents being prohibited from sending their children to those oh-so-evil (and often religious) private schools.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL, how come none of you agree with a 9-0 ruling by conservatives?

[opebo]

That said, what does the right to privacy have to do with parents' rights?

It has to do with parents being prohibited from sending their children to those oh-so-evil (and often religious) private schools.

Well parental power is a violation of the child's rights, Ebowed.  An individual's right to privacy doesn't include ownership of another person!

[Ebowed]

That said, what does the right to privacy have to do with parents' rights?

It has to do with parents being prohibited from sending their children to those oh-so-evil (and often religious) private schools.

Well parental power is a violation of the child's rights, Ebowed.  An individual's right to privacy doesn't include ownership of another person!

Perhaps you didn't pay attention to what the case was about.  Oregon passed a law that all kids between eight and sixteen (except those with disabilites) were required to attend public schools.  A Roman Catholic school and a private military academy had lawsuits over it and the Supreme Court overturned the law, stating that the parents had a right to determine their childrens' education.  It has been cited in later cases, including Roe v. Wade, as an example of the right to privacy.

[opebo]

That said, what does the right to privacy have to do with parents' rights?

It has to do with parents being prohibited from sending their children to those oh-so-evil (and often religious) private schools.

Well parental power is a violation of the child's rights, Ebowed.  An individual's right to privacy doesn't include ownership of another person!

Perhaps you didn't pay attention to what the case was about.  Oregon passed a law that all kids between eight and sixteen (except those with disabilites) were required to attend public schools.  A Roman Catholic school and a private military academy had lawsuits over it and the Supreme Court overturned the law, stating that the parents had a right to determine their childrens' education.  It has been cited in later cases, including Roe v. Wade, as an example of the right to privacy.

Yes, I understood the case, I just don't agree with it.  The right to privacy refers to things you do to yourself, such as drug use, prostitution, or abortion - not child abuse.

[Blue Rectangle]

The ruling was utter bunk. How fitting that it was delivered by perhaps the the most activist conservative justice of all time.

I only read the wiki article--I'm not going to read the full decision.  Wiki starts by talking about the "right to privacy", but the key issue seems to be due process.  So I'm confused.  Did the Court claim that the right to privacy derives from due process?

[Ebowed]

Yes, I understood the case, I just don't agree with it.  The right to privacy refers to things you do to yourself, such as drug use, prostitution, or abortion - not child abuse.

So you supported the Oregon law?  In many cases, public schools turn out to be worse than private ones.

Abortion is not something you do to yourself:  at least one other individual is involved, even from your point of view (the father), but the fact that the fetus cannot consent to be killed is ... well, self-explanatory.

[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.

[A18]

The words "life," "liberty," and "property" embrace everything of aay importance to anyone. That includes parents' rights. But as you say, they can all be deprived with due process of law.

[Blue Rectangle]

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.
[/quote]

So Oregon passed a law because the majority of its citizens believed that Catholic schools are bad and therefore Catholics should have to send their children to public schools.  How is this not a blatant violation of substantive due process?

[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.

[Blue Rectangle]

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

There is no such thing as substantive due process.

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

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.

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.

[A18]

Due process is not the only right. You have free speech, free exercise, and a host of other protections. There's also federalism.

[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.

[opebo]

Yes, I understood the case, I just don't agree with it.  The right to privacy refers to things you do to yourself, such as drug use, prostitution, or abortion - not child abuse.

So you supported the Oregon law?  In many cases, public schools turn out to be worse than private ones.

Abortion is not something you do to yourself:  at least one other individual is involved, even from your point of view (the father), but the fact that the fetus cannot consent to be killed is ... well, self-explanatory.

Yes, abortion is something you choose yourself.  The assistance of the physician is not relevant.  Of course the fetus is not a person.