Redstate

but what else is new from the 9th Circus?

what claim did the plaintiffs state in their complaint?  Was it based on a tort claim, violation of equal protection, due process?  Granted, I'm not exactly a practicing lawyer yet, nor am I very creative when coming up with potential avenues to sue (I will be working the defense side of things), but what was their claim?  They would have had to file it under something good in order to keep it from being dismissed under a very basic Federal Rules provision.  Just curious.

I heartily agree that the basic judgment of the school district in asking 7 year olds these questions was whacked out to say the least.

is simply obscene. Any parent living within the Ninth Circuit who still has their child enrolled in public school need their head examined.

I know the point you're getting at.  As I said over at Confirm Them:

I think the parents should have pulled their kids out of the schools, if they could afford it. I don't really know that it was appropriate for the parents to run off to court over this -- though clearly the school board was unconcerned with their concerns. But, I think the 9th Circuit painted too broad a brush with their opinion. Particularly on issues of sex, parents should be given wide lattitude on what their children are exposed to -- especially at seven years old.

to break up the 9th.  It should field cases from metropolitan SF only.

But can someone explain to me why all of the 9th Circuit Judges who voted thusly in this case shouldn't be impeached?!

These judges are clearly unfit to serve. No foolin'.

is an outrage!  And even more outrageous and disgusting than the verdict is the opinion cited.  Vomiting would be, in my opinion, the natural response to such a heinous ruling.

"there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children"

-this seems to be common sense, but since you bolded it and apparently disagree, where do you find the Constitution saying something to the contrary?  Or is it ok for the Court to manufacture some due process fundamental right in this instance only?  I don't recall seeing an educational gag order for the topics of sex and other "icky things" in the Bill of Rights.  If you don't want the schools teaching about sex, you need to get on the board of your local school and influence the curriculum or you need to pull the children out and teach them yourself.

"the public schools, according to the Ninth Circuit, can only expose children to sex. Exposing children to prayer or the Pledge of Allegiance would indoctrinate the children unfairly"

-if I'm not mistaken, there's a specific constitutional amendment (the first) with two clauses covering religion, but none prohibit or even mention the concept of "exposure of children to the reality of sex"

I was more thinking along the lines of the death penalty, but impeachment would do I guess.

Reading through the decision (briefly, as I should be reading environmental law right now, but sparring with you all is far more stimulating), I would agree with the court's first holding on there being no fundamental right to control the education of one's children, but I heartily disagree with their analysis under the privacy rights where they effectively gloss over the making intimate decisions point and the pertinent fact that the parents' decisionmaking power was removed from their grasp.  Not a great decision, no question.  It differs in a key respect from their pledge decision, however, in that this is something that is rectifiable through the democratic process (what I think you were alluding to Erick) and the court is not acting in an activist way here, but rather in a poorly reasoned reserved manner by not interfering with the institutions that the people arguably have some control over.  Don't like it?  Go get rid of the idiots who approved this nonsense.  And once again, I'll reitierate that I find it to be nonsense.  Legally, its not completely out of the park horrible though, just bad.

have to homeschool, given that I apparantly have no parental rights, as the school system has assumed them-they can teach my child about sex, they can take her to have an abortion, and not tell me, apparantly the schools can do anything they darn well please.

That is a scary thought.  Here's hoping that the 9th once again gets smacked down by some judges higher up.

but it seems from the ninth court statement that the parents wanted to have the right of review over what sexual matters were brought up in class.  They should have this and would in many regions of the country.  

However, the better approach, and one understood in the 9th circuit is to take a child to a psycologist and get a statement that the survey cause undo mental abuse and threaten to sue the school district for this in civil court.  (Heard this approach on the radio from a talk show hostess.  It seems this gets the attention of school boards.)

because now you're operating under a tort rubric, where emotional distress usually needs to be accompanied by physical injury.  However, this depends a lot on the jurisdiction, and ironically, given California's liberal tort laws regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress (I think they are still that way anyway) you could probably sue on this basis alone.

After all the yelling about judicial legislation (with which I agree, by and large), we're now upset because the court didn't invent a right for parents to be the sole provider of sexual education?  Don't get me wrong, that counsellor should be fired and the legislature should ban such crud, but I'm not sure that these parents are entitled to get money from the state because of this.  Or to play off a common theme, where to the words "childhood sexual education" or "parenting" appear in the constitution's text?

Or is it just that the Ninth Circuit isn't exactly known for its philosophy of judicial restraint, so why wouldn't it show it here?  That I can agree with.  I really hope its the latter complaint, more than the former.

the claim of the parents was that their right to privacy and their fourteenth amendment right to not be deprived of their liberty without due process of law were violated by the school's action.

Along with the court, I am skeptical that the action by the Palmdale School District and Ms. Seymore violated either of these rights.

However, this case should send up a red flag for parents who tend to trust what the schools tell them.

This school district deliberately omitted any warning to the parents that their children would be asked about sex and masturbation.

Why?

Hmmm.  Maybe because a parent with any common sense would object to a stranger talking to his or her seven-year-old about masturbation.

It's usually a sex crime if the town pervert does it.  But if the town pervert happens to be working on his master's degree, it's ok.

It's usually a sex crime if the town pervert does it.  But if the town pervert happens to be working on his master's degree, it's ok.

Brilliant point.

Dennis Prager said, there have always been only two kinds of people: the decent and the indecent. And that never-ending war between the two sides is the story of all human civilization. That's what this little story brings to mind.

Why has no one mentioned that this is another reason to support parental choice and vouchers.

I would agree with the court's first holding on there being no fundamental right to control the education of one's children...

And this view is the ultimate reason why public education has failed.

It is the roots of the poisonous tree called modern "education" theory.

(Especially egregious when you consider that education is now a legal requirement. So you are now required to "educate" your kids (and most people are stuck with the public schools, for one reason or another), but you have no "fundamental right to control" the process of education there. Great. Wonderful. Fabulous...)

Calling for the death of people with whom you disagree is a little much, don't you think?

in that the parents' right to privacy was probably not violated.

As for whether the children's right to privacy was violated, that is a different matter and would have probably led to a different result had the parents pursued this argument and had better legal counsel.

But what the Palmdale School District allowed Ms. Seymore to do to these children is inexcusable.  If any of my three kids were asked by some government pervert how often he or she touches himself/herself, I'd file a police report against the pervert for child annoying.  (It is a misdemeanor in California to annoy or molest any child under the age of 18.)  While the law has not specifically spelled out what constitutes "annoying" a child, I'd say that asking a seven-year-old whether or not s/he touches himself/herself qualifies.

There's an error in the writeup.  It looks like the district court dismissed the state claims without prejudice, so the parents can refile in state court.  I just skimmed, so I might be missing something, but that's how I read it.

lays out what constitutes "child annoying".

I'd say that this qualifies especially because the children were asked these questions by a stranger.

It's one thing for a parent to give his children sexual information according to his own timetable.

It's a whole different issue if a stranger asks children about their "dirty thoughts", etc.

This is the kind of crap that got Michael Jackson and Paula Poundstone in trouble.

that being "fundamental".  As the court itself stated, there is a parental interest in how your child is raised, educated, etc., but it is not a fundamental all-encompassing and superceding right.  If it were, compulsory education laws that you cite in your post would be unconstitutional.  There is a limited interest there, but the question of whether it extends here is murky at best, especially since the parents signed a permission slip and this was not compulsory.  I would have ruled in reverse on the privacy issue, however, because I thought the court glossed over that the permission slips were surreptitiously made and by not informing the parents of what was going on, this violated their privacy rights within their family to determine matters of an intimate nature.

not too far from Palmdale, I would just like to thank the 9th Circuit Court for giving parents here more reason to send their young people to us.....

Please, someone remind me why anyone would want to send their children to a school that operates like this.

After all the yelling about judicial legislation (with which I agree, by and large), we're now upset because the court didn't invent a right for parents to be the sole provider of sexual education?

I second this.

Maybe they'll push it all the way to the Supreme Court where a Bush-appointed deliberately-non activist judge will find that there is no Constitutional backing for this lawsuit.

Doesn't this school have any elected officials?  Who voted for the school board and superintendent?

First---if my seven year old ever has to answer questions like this without my express written approval, there will be hell to pay.

However, the dismissal doesn't concern me yet.  The ninth circuit basically held that the parents can't sue under a "Basic constitutional right to control" their children's education.  

Someone will have to tell me where this right is in the Constitution.  More specifically, the parents will have to do so.  They failed.  They complained that their "privacy rights" had been violated.  These are the same rights, by the way, that are used to uphold Roe v. Wade.

However, in drafting their complaint, according to the trial court, the parents used language and law rooted in 14th amendment law, not in privacy.  The trial court dismissed because the 14th amendment standard had not been met.

Now, this is not surprising.  Parents attorneys think they have a privacy case, and try to couch their complaint as such.  Court reads it as a 14th amendment case, and, because the lawyers weren't writing a 14th amendment case, the complaint fails.  You would expect sloppy pleading in this instance.

The Federal Trial Court then dismisses the State Court Claims because the Federal Court doesn't have jurisdiction over these claims without the federal claim.  This is an easy move.  The Court is not saying there is no State Remedy.  It is simply saying there is no Constitutional remedy, and State claims belong in State Court.

So, to sum up.  The Federal Claim was either based on an expansive reading of the 14th amendment, which Scalia and other strict constructionists would NOT allow; or on a "right to privacy" which strict constructionists don't recognize.  So, conservatives would agree that there is no federal remedy here.

I, as a liberal attorney, would sue in State Court under a theory of negligence (which parents asserted, and will re-assert in State Court) and under any corruption of minor statute I could find.

If there is a federal statute against corruption of minors, I would use "No Child Left Behind" and its funding to boot-strap that statute into federal court.

There may be a lot to bemoan the ninth circuit on, but I fault the lawyers here.

Obviously vying to remain the most overturned circuit. With rulings like this one, they deserve that title.

Does anyone realize how big the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction is?

Let's put it this way: there are 13 circuits of the federal court. (plus the DC Circuit, the Federal Circuit, and a few other "specialized" circuits which deal with issues like taxes, bankruptcy, etc.)

The smallest jurisdiction (other than the DC Circuit) is the 1st Circuit.  The 1st Circuit covers Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire.  About 4 million people are covered by the 1st Circuit.

The 9th Circuit covers: California, Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, and Arizona.

Add up how many people are covered by the 9th Circuit.  35 million people in California alone.  Then some 10 million people from the other 7 states.

Altogether, about 45 million people are at the mercy of the 9th Circuit.

The liberals on dKurse consider the 9th Circuit to be their last hope.  They'll fight tooth and nail to keep the 9th Circuit to be split into 2, or, more likely, 3 separate Circuits.

They want the same judges who review/control San Francisco laws to get to invalidate laws in Utah, Idaho, etc.

The time is right for the 9th Circuit to be broken up.  The Democrats are dead-set against it (as long as the Senate and the White House are controlled by Republicans).  Let's send a message to Senator Specter (the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee).  We want the 9th Circuit to be broken up as of immediately.  Let 3 circuits be formed, each controlling no more than 15 million people each.

I'm sure that there are laws that prohibit the "exposure of children to the reality of sex".

That is exactly what they did by exposing them to these questions.

7 years old? It is sick to think that someone could actually create such a survey knowing that the 7-year-old target group doesn't even know what sex is.

I hope that they appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court. Hopefully all hope isn't lost. These kinds of stories really sadden, and scare me.

keep conservative judges off of it.

And even though we control the Senate, we are helpless to stop the dems from their delay and destroy tactics.

We've got to put an end to this.  Send Senator Spector a letter or an email expressing your disgust with his complacency on breaking up the 9th Circuit.  The whole senate hasn't had a chance to vote on this issue because his committee, the Judiciary Committee, doesn't have the cajones to send it to the full senate.

http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInfo.Home

Feel free to cut, paste, and send Mr. Specter a letter.  He won't act until he realizes how outraged Americans are at his nonfeasance as the head of the Judiciary Committee.

This is the jackass who banned the pledge, and does not believe in the Second Amendment.

But they are state laws.  And they need to be pled in state court.  If there is a federal law, then the lawyers missed it, as they didn't plead it.

You can only bring the suit you draft.  And the lawyers only federal claim was a privacy claim/14th amendment claim.  They didn't plead it correctly, and it failed.  End of story.  

I doubt many judges would disagree with this ruling.  I doubt many judges would agree with teaching sex to 7 year olds.

But you have to plead correctly.  You mess that up, and you're gone.  

You learn this in year one of law school.

And it goes without saying that the school (in California and elsewhere) have determined that they must "educate" the children so that they can learn that alternatives to the normal family are as acceptible as single parent families. And that other relationships besides one man and one woman are deserving of recognition and support.  This survey sounds like a smooth way to bring up a lot of these topics for discussion in the classroom, (seventh grade -- yes this is a time when a lot of these questions do come up.)

Sounds really, really good right now.

Anybody have links to the school board recall campaigns, or elections following the original activities? I'm presuming the events occurred 3-5 years ago (time to make it through Dist. Ct. up to 9th circuit) and wonder who's in charge locally now?

It is a curious concept of local control vs. constitutional rights which the 9th seems set about elucidating.

...by these kind of rulings.

Then again, I'm an advocate of homeschooling anyway.

There's no way I'd want anyone asking my seven year olds those kind of things.  I don't even know if I would want them asking my 14 year olds those kind of things.

"As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law. But, we should all be outraged at the lack of respect the Ninth Circuit showed to parents..."

Do you believe there is a "fundamental right" for parents to be the exclusive provider of sexual information? Where is that right located?

Shouldn't this be a matter for the democratic process? Vote the bums out. Off with their electoral heads.

have not put a judicial stamp of approval on the the right of a school district to, with neither my permission or knowledge, have my community's 7-year olds deliberately exposed to sexual topics and probing questions by adults who are placed in authority over them.  

What a grotesque usurpation of basic parental rights.

are not found in the Constitution, of course.  But according to Article IX of the Bill of Rights:  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I would think that such personal matters as sexual education were considered by the Founders as coming under the umbrells of "rights retained by the people."  As well as a number of other topics.

Dear Senator Specter:

First of all, I would like to thank you for all of the hard work which you have done on the Judiciary Committee.  I feel that your position as the head of the Judiciary Committee is the most important position in the Senate short of, perhaps, the majority leader's position.

As the head of the Judiciary Committee, you must be as frustrated as I am regarding the overzealousness of the 9th Circuit.  Far from merely interpreting the law, this Circuit has acted many times to invent rights not found in the Constitution, ignore the rights and needs of parents, Christians, Jews, and other religious people, and put their own activist brand on nearly every major law passed in any of the 8 western states.

Please submit a bill to the full senate, asking that they realign the current boundaries of the Federal Court.  The 9th Circuit is the most overloaded circuit in the United States.  It needs to be split into two or three separate circuits.  Only then will people who currently live in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit see a more just and less activist judiciary.

Thanks again,

(my name)

---

I just sent him this letter via email.

Please do the same.

The 9th Circuit is a boil on the buttocks of all western states.  Please limit its jurisdiction by linking to Senate Specter and voicing your disgust.

Weren't the children's privacy rights violated? Sex is arguably the most private activity humans engage in. After all, the polite term for those organs in the undies is "privates", right?

Apparently this questionnaire was administered at school. I can't see a 1st grader trying to opt out of this exercise. Parents, as guardians, should have had a proper chance to opt their children out, but the school was dishonest (by omission, at least) about it.

I'm no lawyer, but I don't see how anyone can aruge that the parents' rights weren't violated.

submit these questions to first graders.

Many of them are only 6 years old!

Six-year-olds don't need strangers trying to probe into their private lives and talk to them about masturbation.

This is the kind of stuff that Clinton's nominee for surgeon general (Ms. Joycelyn Elders) tried to push.  Getting kids to talk about and participate in masturbation.  Even Clinton was embarrassed by her behavior.

One possible place we may end up moving when our time is up here in the Pacific NW, is Vacaville, CA.  

Scary and disgusting stuff.

No way do I want my kids in the California Public School system.

six-year-olds.

I have two six-year-olds.  If anyone from the school district asked them if they liked to touch their private parts, I'd place him under citizen's arrest and have the local police "escort" him to the city lockup.

And you better believe I'd press charges.

This is the only way the perverts will learn.

A civil action for violation of the parents' right to privacy will not work.  Not as long as the 9th Circuit is in charge.

Leave the matter up to the democratic process - what would be the desired result?  I cannot help but infer from the comments here that the preference of conservatives is that sexual education be banned from public schools.  Or, at minimum, that education be taught by majority vote rather than by accreditation and qualification.  Is that a good idea?  While we're at it, why not demand that science be left to parental instruction too.  That way, Intelligent Design would have no competition.

There is a strain of prudery in all this which is rank and gross in nature.

But, unfortunately, the parents didn't argue this in their complaint.

The parents listed themselves as the plaintiffs (probably to keep their children from having to endure the trauma of a trial in which they would undoubtedly be asked again about their private lives, this time in the presence of their parents and many more strangers).

I can sympathize with the parents who did not want to put their children through this.

The parents should have immediately acted by placing the government pervert under private person's arrest.

At a minimum, they should have immediately retained legal counsel and had a police report taken for child annoying (647.6 of the California Penal Code; makes it a misdemeanor to "annoy or molest" a person under the age of 18).

I knew I could count on you to join this discussion.

opt my kid out of anything that is personally objectionable, and I have the right to be fully informed of what is to be included in any survey my child is given that isn't even part of the actual curriculum being taught.

If the courts believe that I have no right to know what my child is being taught, and what kinds of questions an outsider brought in to administer a survey they are being asked, then I think we have fallen much further than we think.

Parents should not be left out of the education loop, their children are compelled to be in school, but this shouldn't mean that parents have no say in what their kids are being taught and what things they want their children opted out of.

This has taught me one thing-I will never give permission for my child to be administered any type of survey in school, of any type-because obviously the school felt the need to deceive parents as to what was to be included in the survey.  If the schools will lie about this survey, they will probably lie about others.  My only choice as a parent, if the schools won't be honest about the survey, is to not permit my child to participate in any of them.

but a lot of people around here allegedly don't.

You can't say you believe in strict constructionism and then say that you have Constitutional rights to knowing what your child is being taught and what kinds of question and outsider brings in.  At least you can't criticize the 9th Circuit for not recognizing these rights.

To submit a topic to your submission and/or approval would be a herculean task, given the amount of data - and the methodology with which it is distributed -  that flows from student to teacher.  In fact, I would submit that much more controversial topics and subjects are discussed regularly.  Why?  Simply because teachers often work on the fly, much like talk-radio hosts.  Interacting.  Counseling.  Probing. Teaching.  Certainly some topics are prone to rise to a level of importance or specificity that a parent be needs to be brought into the discussion, but such occurances are rare.  They have to be.  Otherwise, a teacher would spend more time justifiying their work to parents - which is always a hectic experience for teachers (more so than for parents, who tend to wallow in their self-righeous sense of propriety).

think the job of the Federal judiciary is to determine whether a law is Constitutional or not.  It is NOT their job to determine whether something is right or wrong.

With this said:

"As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law"

Why is there more discussion? Would that not be legislating from the bench? Or is that the point?

doesn't mean crap.

And I am bothered by the fact that apparantly a school can lie to parents, and get away with it.

Maybe they can vote the bums out, but local politics can be just as difficult to flip as national politics.

I also think the school deserves a big fat lawsuit, and the school district should lose.  It may not be a federal court issue, but there is no way you can convince me that a school district should have the right to deceive parents, and ask extremely sexual questions to a minor child.  

Nicely put.  However, the discussion has careened quite predictably into the realm of legislation.  If folks disagree with a court, they advocate changing the law.  Result?  More law.  Legislation from the legislature to curb and manage the bench becomes the bailiwick of those who would not grant the judicary it's due.  This is the inevitable result of picking a fight with a co-equal branch of government.

But now there is a new precedent with explicit language stating that parents have no right to control the sex education of their own children. All because the parents had a cruddy lawyer.

And what about this:

We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.

Seems the Ninth has just declared, in very broad language, that parents can't complain about anything the schools decide to teach their children.

I can understand how someone can say that the court should have ruled in favor of the defendants if the plaintiffs' lawyers argued the wrong points. But the language the court used doesn't indicate this. Rather, it eviscerates any rights that parents may have had in the proper upbringing of their children.

I served my time as a teacher, and I know all about those herculean tasks.  But this little escapade was not a result of teacher overwork.  As Erick stated, permission was requested (and granted) to ask about certain things.  the topic of sex and molestation was very conveniently left out.  Why, do you suppose?  Eh?  Because the perpetrators knew that being honest about their intentions would cause a huge uproar.

And as for this assertion of yours

much more controversial topics and subjects are discussed regularly

surely I am misconstruing your meaning.  You can't possibly mean that.  On a bet I could not think of something more 'controversial' (I like the word 'outrageous' here, actually) than having some school psychologist engaging my 7-year old in topics such as:

8. Touching my private parts too much
   
   
17. Thinking about having sex
    
    
22. Thinking about touching other people's private parts
    
    
23. Thinking about sex when I don't want to
    
    
26. Washing myself because I feel dirty on the inside
    
    
34. Not trusting people because they might want sex
    
    
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about sex
    
    
44. Having sex feelings in my body
    
    
47. Can't stop thinking about sex
    
    
54. Getting upset when people talk about sex

However, the "lie" you refer to was a lie of omission.  While that may carry little weight with you, it is somewhat germaine.  Keep in mind that the questions above were selectively pulled from a larger list; buried in other questions, each question would not, even for an adult, bear the importance or incindiary weight of a stand-alone list.  I suppose they could've mentioned "sex", and I agree they ought to have, but I hardly see how any child could be substantially harmed by these questions when buried in a host of others.

Just see heterosexual couples as breeding stock. I guess the 9th Circuit is part of that mindset.

and more cogently lays out what I was trying to say upthread in my agreement with the first holding and my strong disagreement with the privacy holding, though you are correct in that it doesn't look like they really argued a privacy case and instead tried to couch it as a 14th amendment claim.  Anyway, just wanted to give you some props.

parents and their children before.  Is it your contention that parents have absolutely no rights regarding their children?  I am not familiar with case law, but I think it is probably a huge leap to say that parents have no rights regarding things that involve their children.  After all, I am required to sign all sorts of release forms and other things regarding them.  Apparantly the government-state or federal has recognized that I have rights to determine certain things regarding my child.

Basically, the ruling didn't say-parents don't have standing on this issue-it went on to say parents had no say in matters regarding what educators chose to teach the children in their care.

The 14th amendment etc may not be the place to argue, and the federal courts may not be the place to argue, but you are going to have a hard time convincing me that the state can require my child's attendance at school, but then also claim the right to tell me nothing about what they are teaching my child, lie to me about things they are exposing my child to, and then telling me I have no say in these matters.

Nope sorry, I am not swallowing the piece of crap you are trying to sell me.

...but I hope Arlen gets my point as well.

---

The 9th Circuit is out of control (see Fields v. Palmdale School Dist., -- F.3d-- (9th Cir. 2005)). If their imperial decisionmaking is "good conduct" as required by the Constitution, what on Earth would constitute bad conduct?

It is your responsibility and duty to address the misdeeds of this panel of so-called judges and put an end to their tyranny. Examine the record and impeach the offenders. Or at the very least, realign the boundaries, split the 9th, and minimize the damage of their cancerous influence.

You're an embarassment to any thinking Republican, and I really don't expect much action from you. But I'd be thrilled if you could surprise me and do something productive.

that in this case, it wasn't sexual education, it wasn't education at all of the students.  It was a survey administered by a college graduate student, and the survey included several questions about sexual activity.

The school sent home a permission slip, it mentioned the fact that there may be topics that included violence, but said nothing about the sexual content.  Basically the school lied to the parents, in order to deceive them about what was on the survey.

Apparantly schools now not only have the right to teachyour kid anything they please without your knowledge, but they also have the right to lie to you, all the while your child's attendance is compelled by state law (unless you can afford private school or you are able to homeschool).

As for sex education-I am a conservative, I am not opposed to it, but I think it should be age appropriate, and doesn't belong in the elementary school at all, especially in a survey that isn't even about educating my child.

I served my time as a teacher too - of 6th and 7th graders.  They themselves have brought up topics much more virulent that these rather banal questions.  They're smart, curious and conflicted.  Furthermore, they often come from homes that are not only less attendant to their concerns that they ought to be, but (sometimes) damagingly negligent and even abusive.

you must hang around some conservatives.  Are they starting to rub off on you, or are you just engaging in a little irony here?

But this case is not about the constitutionality of a law, per se, it's more about some competing rights - on first blush, the rights of parents to have some semblance of say-so regarding what happens to their children at school, vs a school administration's right to ...to.... I'm having trouble with this.... to foist whatever kind of secular humanistic values that it chooses on the children under it's care.  

The legalistic niceties are of some interest to me, but the main point of my note (to which you apparently object) was not a legal one, but an expression of moral outrage.  Actually I agree with alot of the sentiment on this page that there are methods of relief that involve, in one way or another, 'throwing the bums out', via school board elections, or what have you.  

the parents DON'T have a FEDERAL parental rights.  

that there is not CONSTITUTIONAL parental rights.  Laws can be made that CREATE parental rights, especially in the State legislature.  But the Constitution doesn't speak to it.  The lawyers in this case tried to make this a Constitutional matter.  It wasn't.  The 9th said so.  End of discussion.

I agree with you that such a contentious survey should never be given to children that young without explicit parental consent.  I also think that the school board and administrators should be punished for this.  But that's up to the Palmdale school district voters, not the 9th circuit.

should refer the student to the parent - NOT provide their views on the subject without the parents permission!

Honestly I agree with many Conservative AND Liberal principles when it comes to the judiciary.  

I'm fine with the moral outrage.  I completely understand it.  But the outrage should be directed at the school board, not the 9th.  

Well, glad to see that you speak from a perspective of personal knowledge.  Good for you, that's God's work you do (whether or not you recognize any deity, just please take that as a compliment).  But these are 6th-7th graders, and they are bringing up these topics.  Yes, those questions would be quite banal (and pretty humorous, actually) to 7th graders.

But these are SEVEN YEAR OLDS.  And they are NOT asking the questions, they are having their personal lives pried into, on topics that are CLEARLY not age-appropriate.  Do you not see anything wrong with that, Nar?  Can I call you Nar, or perhaps Boink?  You can call me E, or Pluribus, or EPU if it suits you.  

Hell, why don't we just have them watch some kiddy porn, and ask them if it makes them uncomfortable watching films of some adult shoving his #### up a little boy's ### .  But let's be sure we get parental permission, tell the parents you'll be watching films on 'family relationships'.

Yep, my outrage is primarily directed at the school board.  But I don't hold the 9th blameless.  They don't exactly have alot of cred built up with us socons.

there is also no explicit comment in the Constitution supporting Federally funded public schools either.....

This case should be exhibit number 1 the next time the discussion of vouchers is brought up.

I thought I would look up what the SCOTUS has said regarding parental rights and intrusion by the state within them.

Found this link with a variety of cases decided bythe court.

I am off to bed, and don't have time to read them-especially to sense where they would fit within a strict constructionist or originalist frame of reference (although I think you can infer that parents had a lot of rights regarding the care of their children at the time the constitution was written, hard to make the same case for something like abortion).  An originalist may take that status into account, when deciding.

http://www.liftingtheveil.org/supreme-court.htm

Oh, and I should also say I haven't got a clue who runs the website, but since they list the actual cases, fact checking isn't too difficult.

What ruling would you WANT the 9th to have made?   Would you want them to create Constitutional rights?

The lawyers, it would seem, made a really bad argument.  The 9th would have both needed to ASSIST the lawyers and then doing some judicial acrobatics to get to a ruling that you would have liked.  

just the father of two girls, so I can't speak authoritatively on the legal fine points of the ruling. But it seems to me that the Court went way beyond simply rejecting the appeal. They could have done that without launching into

...there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it.

Had they stopped at "We agree" I could accept the argument the parents and/or their lawyers missed the boat. But they seemingly couldn't be content at that and had pontificate on the rights of parents.

Seems to me as a perfect example of judicial overreach.

Texas will take ya in spite of who you root for.

With this ruling, they imposed the states right to teach whatever they please.  If this holds true, then the parents have no overriding authority on the state regarding the teaching of their own children.  I can't imagine it getting much worse than this!

Wow.  Well, it seems to me that you bring up an interesting point.  At what point in a classroom should issues be brought to parental notice?  That is the question begged by the original point, right?  Who decides this?  Perhaps it should be left to "common sense," as subjective as that term is.  There are good teachers and bad teachers.  There are "age appropriate" questions are there are not.  We may disgree on what those are, but I can assure you we are not alone.  Most everyone disagrees.  That's the problem.  Some slimeball questionnaire can slip through - that does not a crisis make (unless we're talking about a blog thread).  

I simply side with teachers on principal, largely because most teachers I've worked with (and studied under) are caring people without zealous political scores to settle.  These are the people that are hobbled by over-zealous, and, yes, hyperactive parents.  When I taught I was focused on my subject - not the issues of the day.  I didn't preach the gospel of any political party, belief, or psychology.  I taught my subject.  Period.  What's the answer to our problem?  It's the same as it was 40 years ago: relegate the teaching of sex (and other emotionally charged issues) to a separate course, submit it for parental approval, and end up with a watered-down, lowest-common-denominator ciriculum that teaches, well... sludge.

you can bet that if you started asking seven year old kids in the local mall about touching their private parts you'd end up in the slammer PDQ.

The complaint that seems to be running throughout the comments is that somehow the court should have punished the school and this counselor for exposing children to sexual topics at exceptionally young ages.

But that's not how courts work.  Others above have pointed out, and it seems pretty clear, that the lawyers in this case did a poor job.  The court isn't there to mete out punishment when people are offended--the plaintiff has to make a prima facie case that something illegal happened.  The Court is just saying that the plaintiff's theory of the case doesn't stand up.

And this statement:

As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law. But, we should all be outraged at the lack of respect the Ninth Circuit showed to parents -- who should be the the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex.

That should throw up red flags for anyone and everyone concerned about judicial activism.  

Right there, Erick says, "Hey, it doesn't matter what the law was, the 9th Circuit should try not to offend parents.  Why? Well, because I think something that's not in the law should be."

Wake up!  This is your chance!  If it's not in the law and you want it to be, then it's time to legislate it.  That's what the legislature is there for.  

This problem can be solved at the local level through the democratic process.  

Do you really believe the courts should be making these sorts of judgments?  Or do you just want the courts to effectuate your beliefs?

Outstanding link!

Seems that the Ninth's declaration that "parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students" is at odds with the Supreme Court's statement that "choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as "of basic importance in our society," Boddie, 401 U.S., at 376 , rights sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect".

I don't think the Ninth Circuit Court has the authority to overturn the Supreme Court.

with the questionaire, which was dealing with early trauma. As according to studies, a significant percentage of both boys and girls, experience some type of sexual trauma before the age of 12.

It was innapropriate for the school not to inform the parents of the entire context of the questionaire, and was rather naive of the parents to not request to see the questions in advance.

I disagree that parents should be "the only party introducing seven year olds to the issues of sex."

Many parents do not instruct their children regarding issues such as "good touch, bad touch," which could open children to those that wish to prey upon them.

But I dont even think this questionaire had anything to do with instruction.

And it is not the first of it's kind.

Many of the like are given to school age children...mostly connected to schools of psycholgy engaged in research.

In undergrad psych, I gave out such a questionaire....albeit to children above the age of 10....but all parents were well informed as to the context of the questionaire, and were offered the opportunity to see the questions in advance.  

The parents have a few options.

They can convince their school board to change it's policies.

They can push to have the school board changed.

They can pull their children from public school and either home school them or put them into private schools.

They can move to a new district.

Then again this is the way it has ALWAYS been here.

is "we agree" with the lowew court. There was no need for them to embellish it with some diatribe like

there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it

It was simply unnecessary.

The kind of questions that they ask have no bearing on sex education!  Only through their deceit did they get parental consent.  These type of questions are way beyond this age group.

of the court manufacturing some new right. They manufactured the lack of a right. The nonsense about "no fundamental right..." was simply unnecessary to the purposes of affirming or overturning the lower court.

The 9th Circuit ignored SC precedent, only the SC would be able to find that "parenting is not a constitutional right" as it had previously found that "parenting is a fundamental constitutional right". It would be like the 9th Circuit had said "abortion is illegal in this country as of now". They have no authority to do so.

In the early 1920s, the United States Supreme Court first reviewed the rights, liberties and obligations of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. Two important decisions, Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, established a legacy which was followed by a series of decisions holding that parenting is a fundamental constitutional right, and among "the basic civil rights of man."

Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among those rights the Court has ranked as "of basic importance in our society," and as sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State's unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.

link

is bound by SC precedent. They ignored that. Lower courts cannot overturn the Supreme Court.

it would also stand to reason that if the school did inform the parents of the full contents of the questionaire that the mostly likely to have suffered such trauma would be the ones most likely to disallow their children from participating in the survey. This would probably have an effect on the outcome of the survey.

So could you point to the part of this opinion which said that there is no fundamental right to parenting?

Thank you.  Very astute and accurate.  I completely agree.

"there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information"

Sounds like the definition of parenting to me.

with your comment!  What if the Supreme Court upholds this?  Then there is no alternative except home schooling.  The content control of teachers should be at the local level ONLY.  That is the only way that Parents can have a say in the curriculum. The State and Federal government control should be very general at best.

as those who refuse to see:

We hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.

I think it's pretty clear that parents don't have a "fundamental right" to absolute control over the information their children recieve.  And we conservatives should recognize the incredible dangers present in expansive fundamental rights jurisprudence (i.e. Griswald, Roe, Lawrence, etc.).  The Ninth Circuit made the right decision.

However, the political process should take care of these school board jokers with dispatch, just as Justices Scalia and Thomas would have it.  

So you think that parents should be able to sue TV networks for providing information they don't want their children to have?

If a parent wishes to be the "exclusive" provider of information, they can.  They can home school their children.  But if they choose to send their child to public school they abdicate that exclusivity.

Exclusivity is the issue here, not the righ to parent.  We all have the right to provide information.  Heck, that's what you're doing.

Do you think that parenting is a due process right?  Or do you think it is a privacy right?

mentioning that Scalia (with the strict constructionist philosophy that seems to be popular around here) has generally argued against what was articulated in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (and has done so publically in debates with the ACLU president Nadine Strossen).  See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 91 (Scalia, J., dissenting) (arguing that the concept of unenumerated parental rights established in earlier cases such as Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), should not be entitled to strong stare decisis protection).  Just a word of warning to all those strong proponents of strong originalism.

the kids had to get parents to sign the (fraudulent) permission slips to participate.

Why did the school have to get (the fraudulent) permission slips in the first place?

Scalia resides on the proper court in which to overturn precedent.

if you want to overturn any parental rights, but don't get all indignant at decisions like this then on moral grounds anyway

School boards have rules.  Permission slips aren't created by Constitutional fiat.

In California, the democratic proccess doesn't mean crap.

I'm assuming you meant the above statement and not the alternative reading of what you wrote.

So, my question is why is the democratic process in California bad?  

We have to accept that sometimes we lose out in democratic processes.  That doesn't mean democracy is bad or the process doesn't function.  It just means that the people don't agree with you.

The school board recognizes that parents are entitled to grant or deny permission for their kids to participate in certain activities (usually including SexEd). This probably came about because previous Supreme Court rulings have held that parents have the right to opt their kids in/out of certain school activities. The 9th Circuit seems to have overturned those previous rulings (whether or not they were originally correctly decided is another matter, much like Roe lower courts are bound by SC precedent).

I'd go back to South Carolina.  Even though a big part of the family is in Texas.  :)

Alas, I'm still several years away from voicing my opinion.

Seriously, this whole thing disgusts me.  Neo, you had such a good point regarding the town pervert.  True, so true.

I think most Americans would never dream that in their lifetime the government would be able to dictate to parents what children should and should not be taught.

This should be a warning that crazy stuff like that is a lot closer than we think.

In 1990 I bet nobody thought that 15 years later society would be on the verge of embracing gay marriage and polygamy.

But the truth is that the 9th ruled SPECIFICALLY on the case brought before them.  

The lawyers brought the case up on 14th amendment and privacy rights issues.  Do you agree that parenting is protected by the 14th or the right to privacy?

I think most Americans would never dream that in their lifetime the government would be able to dictate to parents what children should and should not be taught

You are familiar with No Child Left Behind, right?

If you look at the overturn ratio of the 9'th circuit's rulings at the Surpreme Court, you may also have some questions regarding the democracy of California.  Seems to be a state ruled by demigods.

the Supreme Court seems to find that the 14th applied in both Meyer v Nebraska and Pierce v Society of Sisters.

Yes, this is what happens when the Federal government get involved in schooling!  None of this was a factor before Federal involvement.  It will only get worse until Federal and most of the State involvement is removed.  When schooling is controlled at the local level, the damage is minimized and controllable by the parents.

There's that current debate in several school districts about evolution.

Simple fact is that government always dictates what is taught in public schools.  Local government, but nonetheless.

Meyer:  Parents have a right to have their children taught German.

Pierce:  Parents have a right to send their children to private schools.

Neither of those holdings stands for the proposition that parents have a right to be the exclusive source of information.

To be honest, no. When the rights of people are taken away (in this case to raise their children, basically), that's a sort of violence. It's violence against the law, obviously, but also against the people that are effected.

I don't think sitting around in a robe directing clerks what rights to strip next makes someone unique or particularly deserving of respect. That might be the reality, but my comment was obviously hypothetical, seeing as these "judges" aren't going to be so much as criticized in the media.

I don't understand your statements.

If the court is overturned, then its determinations have no force.  So, a high number of overturned cases wouldn't really serve to prove that the state is rule by the judiciary.

And really, having a large number of cases overturned doensn't serve to show that there are democratic problems in California.  Especially since the 9th covers nine states, including Montana, Idaho, Alaska, and Arizona.

It's late and I have had a couple of drinks and I'm not up for reading opinions right now.

I really would like to continue this but I may forget to respond to this tomorrow.  For that I apologize.

Looks like a local issue to me.

The so-called privacy right is founded in due process.

2 Questions

1. Why did the school even bother with their (fraudulent) permission slips?
   
2. Is the 9th Circuit allowed to ignore Supreme Court precedent?
   

I'm about ready to go off to bed myself.

That's how it's been done since forever.  Literally, since about the late 1200's in England--a tradition we inherited as colonies.

It's only the sexual questions that seem to bother the parents and others on this board, and not the violence questions?

When the rights of people are taken away (in this case to raise their children, basically), that's a sort of violence.

Three things:

First, the court isn't taking a right away.  It's just saying that this one the plaintiff is claiming doesn't exist.  This ruling doesn't preclude state or local legislation enacting and protecting this right, if those governments so choose.

Second, a "violence against the law" is not a compensable harm.

Third, the claim the plaintiff was making was based on the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.  They were making a claim based on the reasoning in Roe and its antecedents.

You'll see some of those antecedents noted throughout this thread.  Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Skinner v. Oklahoma, Griswold v. Connecticut.  

All those created a right to choose whether and how you will raise a family.  And they lead to Roe.

that neither sits well with most conservatives.

Court decisions are not always pushed to the Supreme Court for lots of reasons.  That leaves many bad decisions by the 9th in standing...  It also shows a lack of jurisprudence by the court.

And how does that relate to democracy?

All you're saying is, "Man, the 9th Circuit has to make a lot of decisions, so there's no democracy in California."

Well, I think that most of the problems developed with the Federal Department of Education which tended to give authority to the State Education boards and left the local school boards out of the decision making process (I know, that sentence is way too long).  Anyway, this type of problem did not happen during my generation (showing my age) :^)

come on... The courts have never wrongly suppressed the will of the people... Wrongly.  

The courts are sometimes countermajoritarian, but that's not evidence of a lack of democracy.

And whether you think it was done "wrongly" is going to depend on which side of the issue you come down on.  Yes, sometimes the courts are wrong to do so, but we can't say they were wrong simply because we disagree with the political aspects decision.

IMHO, courts often very importantly suppress "the will of the people." Some part of our government has to keep the legislatures and executives from running amok with popular fever--some part has to ensure the majority isn't tyrannical.

As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law.

Doesn't this mean that the Court did exactly what it was supposed to do?  Anyway.

there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it.

This is what you seem to be objecting to.  If we accept your premise that parents ought to be the final arbiters of the knowledge of sex that their children get, how far are we willing to take it?  Sex figures into most television, most advertising, and a great majority of our culture.  To give the parents such a right strikes me as an impossibility.

The provider of the survey erred by not being as clear as possible about their survey, however, based on your brief quote, the error seems to be an innocent one of omission rather than one of malice.  The sexual questions asked certainly could be indicators of childhood trauma.

I agree with much of what you are saying...  My point was in relation the the constitution which has been neglected many times.  I can read it since it was written in poor mans english and understand what it says.  Now just what gives the courts the right to change the meaning of the words?  The 9th court seems to change their meaning a bit too often!

live within the 9th court's jurisdiction.

Thanks for reminding me. :p

Yet another reason my kids go to private, christian school.  To make sure their right to say the pledge, using the words "under God" and their right to innocence stay intact.

Yup, we're are reaching a new low in this country.

It'll be a cold day down under before my kids would ever step foot in a school that approved of such garbage.

And, I agree with my fellow mom, Just Me, upthread.  No surveys for my kiddies.

at your last statement.  Be careful though, some idiot just might try it some day.

actually says that the parents do have that right.

There are several other cases which say the same thing.

But, I tend to agree with you.  Despite the expansive definition of the "right to privacy" which the Court created in the Twentieth Century, I don't see it either expressed or implied in the Constitution.  And even if I saw it as being implied by the Constitution, I don't think that this would mean anything.  The Founding Fathers were perfectly capable of writing a right to privacy into the Constitution had they chosen to do so.

The people are free to amend the Constitution by adding a right to privacy if they choose to do so.

And you're right about it being less subtle.  But maybe Arlen needs a good, swift kick to the kiester.

While I don't believe that school districts should be teaching about sex without explicit parental concent, it is a LEGISLATIVE ISSUE!!!

In essence, this diary shows that Republicans are against judicial activism, unless it's judicial activism for a cause they favor.

The essence of hypocracy.

would be able to locate some hidden clause in the US Constitution where it talks about the rights of parents to teach their children about sex without interference from schools?

The 9th circuit stated that there is no Federal right with respect to the issue. That is completely different from saying that there can never be a right with respect to the issue.

I have a right to enjoy myself on my private property without being disturbed by excessive noise from neighbors. I don't have this right because of the US Constitution. I don't have this right because of Federal Law. I don't have this right because of the Oregon Constitution. I don't even have this right because of Oregon Law.

I do have this right because the City Council for the city I happen to live in passed a noise ordinance.

Just because the 9th Circuit found no Federal case doesn't mean it's OK. And for them to make any other finding would definitely have been a case of judicial activism.

But then again, some types of judicial activism are OK for Republicans. Such as the claim that the 11th Ammendment prohibits a citizen from suing his own state in Federal Court. Probably one of the biggest cases of judicial activism in the 20th century is Seminole Tribe of Florida v Florida. In 1996, the Supreme Court ruled in direct contradiction to the explicit wording and intent of the 11th Ammendment. Read the Dissenting Opinions from the four "liberal" justices. I quote Justice Stevens' dissent, which refers to Justice Souter's dissent.

The importance of the majority's decision to overrule the Court's holding in Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co. cannot be overstated. The majority's opinion does not simply preclude Congress from establishing the rather curious statutory scheme under which Indian tribes may seek the aid of a federal court to secure a State's good faith negotiations over gaming regulations. Rather, it prevents Congress from providing a federal forum for a broad range of actions against States, from those sounding in copyright and patent law, to those concerning bankruptcy, environmental law, and the regulation of our vast national economy.

There may be room for debate over whether, in light of the Eleventh Amendment, Congress has the power to ensure that such a cause of action may be enforced in federal court by a citizen of another State or a foreign citizen. There can be no serious debate, however, over whether Congress has the power to ensure that such a cause of action may be brought by a citizen of the State being sued. Congress' authority in that regard is clear.

As JUSTICE SOUTER has convincingly demonstrated, the Court's contrary conclusion is profoundly misguided. Despite the thoroughness of his analysis, supported by sound reason, history, precedent, and strikingly uniform scholarly commentary, the shocking character of the majority's affront to a coequal branch of our Government merits additional comment.

If this case isn't judicial activism, I don't know what is.

On a bet I could not think of something more 'controversial' (I like the word 'outrageous' here, actually) than having some school psychologist engaging my 7-year old in topics

She is NOT a school psychologist.  She is a student working on a masters who is using the kids as the subject of a paper.  I know quite a few school psychologists (including my wife) who would have run her out of the school on a rail for even proposing this study.

quick, because the school mandates my children attend.  They have my child as a captive audience, and they doggone well are not my child's parents, as much as some parents would like for them to be, they aren't my kids.

You propose private school and homeschooling as a choice, but both of these come with considerable cost.  A private school much more than homeschooling, but when you consider a parent needs to be home to instruct their homeschooled child, you realize that they likely will be a one income family (although some families may work out elaborate schedules that permit both parents to work), and the books/curriculum/supplies come out of the parents pocket.

Yes, those two choices are options for parents with the ability to use them, but this isn't the case for a lot of parents.

So if the state has the right to discuss sex with my seven year old, and I have no say in the matter, and they are compelling my 7 year olds attendance, then they better give me an option that doesn't involve discussing sex with them or pay for my kid to attend school elsewhere.

Well while you are sitting on your private property, think of Kelo.

compels parents to send their children to public schools or provide an educational alternative at their own expense.

The fact that the state is forcing a parent to send their child to their public school, means they are imposing to some degree on the rights of the parents (and I don't know that I would argue that parents have absolutely no rights in decision making with regard to their children-it may or may not be within the US constitution, but are you guys who support the ruling entirely and screaming "activism" in the direction of those outraged, actually arguing that parents should be forced to send their kids to school, and then have absolutely no say, in what they are being taught or introduced to, and that the school has the right to deceive them as well?  I am struggling here thinking that there is no right to prevent this behavior).

And the SCOTUS has apparantly held that parents do have rights-those may be wrongly decided, but it doesn't appear that the 9th ignored that case law.  Did they even cite it and explain why those cases don't apply?  Usually the court will explain why case law that appears to apply is considered to not apply in this case.

But the fact that schools apparantly can determine everything introduced to a child in the schools, and they have apparantly now received the right to deceive parents about what they are introducing to those chidren, we are entering a very scary area for me as a parent.

My kids don't go to school to learn about sex at age 7, to take surveys about sex (and I have issues with schools doing surveys for graduate students anyway, especially if parents aren't given a full discolosure of content, but I think taking a survey is a waste of the school academic period), they go to school to learn how to read, write, do math, and learn about history, civics and other important stuff.

no surveys, ever on any subjects for my kids.

None, I don't care if the poor college grad student doesn't get good results.

My kids aren't going to be taking them.

Not to mention, I do not think school is the place to administer these types of surveys.  These surveys do not help the education of my child on iota, they help some grad student write their thesis or some college proffessor write another paper.

Sorry, but no thanks, my kids do not have permission to be your guinea pigs.

The school district I live in has determinted that fifth grade is the proper time to educate girls about the imminent changes in their bodies as they begin to turn into women. My daughter reached fifth grade last year, so near the beginning of the year, she brought home a note from the school indicating that parents were allowed to come to the school to preview the material, and to opt their daughters out if the parents deemed the material objectionable.

I availed myself of the opportunity, and found the material to be wholly appropriate (nothing at all like this questionnaire), so I allowed my daughter to participate.

I am very glad that I live in South Carolina, rather than California.

standards aren't that bothersome to me, it just keeps schools on the same page.

But the details of how those basic areas are taught should be solely up to the local school districts.

But I am troubled by this notion that schools should be able to have my child as a captive audience and introduce any subject matter they please, and I as a parent am given no say over the matter, or ability to opt my child out of it.

I don't think this is the direction education should go, and if it does, we have indeed turned our schools into little indoctrination zones, where any values your child is taught at home, can be poopooed by the school, because parents have no rights or say in what is taught.

YOu can't tell me that the state has more right over my child's education than I do.  And since options other than the public school come at a cost to me, then I think we should definitely head the direction of vouchers and school choice.

At least with vouchers I have the ability to send my child to a school that won't spend the day assaulting our family values.

the TV, the magazines their kids read, and other things that may introduce them to sex.

The 9th has just said that parents do not have the right to censorship with regard to the schools.

I can always make my kid turn the TV off, or change the channel.  I can make them turn off the radio or change the station.  I may take away or prohibit the purchase of books that I deem inappropriate.

But if the school wants to introduce my 7 year old to sex, I have no say in the matter, and I can't opt my child out (or if I can, the school has a right to decieve me about the content so that I do not opt my child out based on those reasons).

Do you see the apples and oranges here?

There is no right for kids to watch sex on TV, but the school now has more right to introduce my child to sex than I do.  There is something screwed up in this picture.

Re: As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law.

If the case is decided rightly according to the law then obviously people need to change the law. Complaining about the courts ruling according to the law rather than according to the way one wants (even in cases where a true injustice is committed) is not the sort of thing that one should encourage.

I was given a note with plenty of notice.

And the school nurse (who presented the movie) discussed the content with me, and permitted a preview (and she was fully honest about the content-her description of the content was exactly what was there).

I had no issues with it, and most of the issues presented had already been discussed as the puberty fairy had started to come already.

Re:  Laws can be made that CREATE parental rights

No. Laws cannot be made to "create" rights. Our rights exist independently; they are not granted to us by the fiat of almighty government.

A better way to phrase this would be to say that laws can be made to recognize parental rights.

I mean who seriously believes teachers should have to discuss a child's education with a parent. What possible interest could a parent have in this other than inflicting their self-righteousness on the teacher.

It's just a ridiculous notion that a parent should have a voice there or a teacher, who is a public employee, would want to interact with the person footing the bill.

Choose your own curriculum or buy curricula from sources that match your values.  Choose different curriculum for each child based on their needs and learning styles.  If it floats your boat, study scripture or church history.  Graduate your student early and enroll him/her in an apprenticeship program with a local tradesman or craftsman.  Arrange recreational activities and field trips with other homeschoolers to make sure socialization is not a problem.  Homeschooling can be the best option for a lot of families these days.

My 11-year-old blushes and turns his head when I hug and kiss his mother.  I can't imagine him getting a survey like this.  The Democrats talk about a divided nation, this is what's causing that divide.  The are trying to take away the rights of parents to raise their kids.  No wonder more parents are looking at home-schooling or private schools.  If this kind of thing were brought up in Virginia, I would pull my kids out of school so fast it isn't funny.  

The only good thing out of this is that it's another "nail in the coffin" for the liberal left.  With decisions like this, they will never find a majority of voters to elect officials that would agree with this decision.

if any public school teacher really wanted to go down the 'accreditation and qualification' road given that School of Education admissions have the lowest SATs in their admissions class regardless of their institution, given the actual education curriculum, and given the standard that needs to be met for accreditation.

Way too many want reasonable decisions, and they don't want judicial activism. However at times  the 2 are in conflict.

This is the definition of something that is a local political matter. Don't like the guidelines that the local school board uses to educate the kids? Go to the board and complain. Run for a seat. Have lunch with the school principal and let your dissatisfaction be known. Give money to like minded souls who will run.

Running to court with every grievance is an American right. However federal courts aren't the place to litigate school board matters, and the Ninth Circuit ruled correctly.

I'm surprised at the last statement:

As a legal matter, the case was most likely rightly decided based on the law. But, we should all be outraged at the lack of respect the Ninth Circuit showed to parents -- who should be the the only party introducing seven year olds to issues of sex. As Neodanite said, if the town pervert had grilled the seven year olds on masturbation, it would have been a crime. In the same way, I can hardly imagine the Ninth Circuit upholding a law that would give parents the exclusive right to education their children about sex. And that is just not right.

Why the outrage if the case was decided correctly? A correct decision is all we can hope for in court. Court is not the place to affirm our place in the community. It's not a place to build our self respect. It's a place where our rights as citizens are decided. That's the best we can hope for.

A number of left of center participants in this thread have questioned where I get in the constitution that parents do have a fundamental right to be the exclusive provider of sexual content to their seven year old.

I don't know about y'all, but I find that right in the same place that the left of center participants find the abortion right.

There is no evidence that abusive parents would withdraw their children in greater numbers than non-abusive parents.  The opposite could be true-children who suffer sexual abuse could have less-involved parents, making overreporting of abuse more likely.

I disagree with the prior post-the questions are appropriate for a clinician trying to determine if a child has been abused, with due cause for the questioning.  It was not appropriate for these children to be subject to this little experiment without a full and complete disclosure of the questions.

when I pat The Mrs. and myself on the back for the decision to put our kids in Catholic school.

If the appropriate voters fail to fire every, single, solitary member of the Palmdale School District, then shame on them.

And while I may agree that the decision is probably correct on the law, I find it interesting that this same Circuit Court found rather starkly differently in the Pledge case.  Seems that this particular group of robed super-legislators has a very selective opinion of what are and are not "federal causes".

This decision is absolutely nauseating.  In addition to attempting to remedy this via the legal avenue, parents in that school district should wage a campaign to remove from office every school board member who supports this policy.  Too often, we neglect electing individuals who agree with our values at the school district level.  This needs to change.  We need to be more involved and make board members accountable for policies that clearly undermine parental authority and offend the senses.

Apparently, the Court failed to consider the deceitful manner in which the questionaire was distributed to the children.  If it wasn't wrong or uncomfortable to distribute the questionaire and expose the children to questions regarding sex then why didn't the school and the liberal graduate student who created it state up front that the survey would include sexually-oriented questions?

Obviously, as the subsequent suit by outraged parents indicates, the school didn't want the questionaire exposed to the parents--only to their captive audience of elementary school students.

I wonder if the topic were different (homosexuality) the 9th Circuit would have came out the same way:

7. Know any one who is gay or lesbian
   
   
17. Said the word "fag" recently
    
    
22. Believe that homosexuality is immoral
    
    
23. Said the word "dike" recently
    
    
26. Thinking about how I hate gays
    
    
34. Not trusting people because they might be gay
    
    
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about gays or lesbians

I bet that if questions such as these were asked, the Court would have dug deep into the penumbral recesses and escavated a constitutional excuse to rule against the school.

"There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."

--- I could see where a strict constructionist would hold such a view, but lets be real.   I think 99% of Americans feel the spirit of the Constitution grants them right to have a vocal say in their children's education.

Oh .... AND WHAT WAS THAT SCHOOL THINKING!?

My daughter's nine.  I hate to think that the B&B talk is coming up within the next year.  Right now she is so blissfully unaware.

<head in hands, shaking back and forth>

but it gets worse, a lot worse :-) [2 daugthers] But worth every minute of it as I'm sure you already know.

On the other hand, Kelo did not completely contradict the plain text of the US Constitution. And the problems with Kelo can be remedied by state and Federal legislatures, unlike the complete mess which the 1993 11th Ammendment case caused.

Are you claiming, Bartman, that you support strict constructionism? Or is it your point that activism is OK and we should be down with it?

In any case, I agree with one thing you said. Just because the court didn't agree that they have a right to sue, doesn't mean they don't have any avenue to get things at the school changed.

Two silly thoughts: Wasnt someone making noise about dismantling the 9th circuit? How about moving forward with this? Second: why havent we packed the 9th circuit court with some Janice Brown type of bomb throwers?

I warned you these were kind of silly.

If this were to be upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court then the government essentially owns our children.

 Does our government have exclusive rights about every issue pertaining to education, if so then we are becoming no different then the brainwashed Communist countries of China, North Korea, and Cuba

that for Republicans who have been chanting an mantra of "we are for strict constructionists," and "no more activist judges" to complain about this decision suggests a couple of potential motivations:

1. "Strict Constructionist" is actually code for "Conservative Viewpoint," and claims about sticking to the text of the Constitution are just a bunch of hot air.
   
2. It's a chance to bash the 9th Circuit, and the actual legal aspects of the decision are irrelevant when you can get some good librul bashing in.

My personal views tend to lean more towards strict constructionists, but I don't believe that the conservative members of the court have a legitimate claim to that title. (I don't think the liberals do either.)

the court says you don't have any say in it anyway. You solution is not "no surveys", it's no public schools.

This is what happens to to a society that becomes obsessed with the "rule of law."

shockingly a liberal judge appointed by Carter

http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/414ily
ss.asp?pg=1

So either this is faux outrage or you really have no problem with Griswold and roe.

...to advocate the assassination of public servants.  Even in jest.

Thank you in advance for your compliance.

To talk about this ruling in the context of the 9th circuit and the scope of the law, but we're missing something important here:  the author of the questionnaire was a Master's Degree candidate at the California School of Professional Psychology.  My hunch is that this questionnaire was drawn up in partial fulfillment of the degree requirements, perhaps for clinical research.  

CSPP is part of a collection of 4th-tier degree mill psychology schools around the country that are very adept at charging a lot of tuition (much of which gets paid by federal loans) to produce a constant stream of liberal, leftist, and doppler-shift left social workers, clinical psychologists and "research" psychologists.  

I recognized the CSPP link instantly because I had heard of it before:  in a previous life, I had a significant other who graduated from the Chicago-based equivalent of CSPP:  ISPP, the Illinois School of Professional Psychology which occupies a couple of floors of office space in one of the large buildings in downtown Chicago.  These schools are big moneymakers for the administration (which in my experience was inept and deliberately underfunded the staff and physical plant [check out that website!] in order to maximize their take) and their "professorate," who are largely composed of a group of rotating clinicians and other "psychological practitioners" from the region who teach classes to earn some cash on the side.  They get paid very well to turn out students that would have had trouble getting accepted at more rigorous institutions, who then go on to staffing assignments of exactly the kind you see in this article, where they can test out their hairbrained theories at your expense, and get the 9th Circuit to uphold their prerogative to do so.

If you'd like to know how badly I got sucked into leftism as a young man, I gave up a degree at a very prestigious university to move to Chicago and make sure that this woman that I knew made it through the ISPP program (I had promised her I wouldn't let her fail, and I was a man of my word.)  I wrote more than 2/3rds of her dissertation myself, because if she had been responsible to doing it, it would never have gotten finished.  

My point is that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of these second-rate "psychologists" and social workers being churned out every year across the country, and believe me, 99 44/100% of them are leftwing acolytes, multiculturalists, and social engineers who truly believe that they really do know better than you what your children should be exposed to and when.  The politics is part of the curriculum, and if anyone would like to know more, they can email me:  I will not argue with any disgruntled psychology students in this thread, but for the rest of you, I think it's important to realize that these schools exist by the bucketfull, and their bucket runneth over.

Apparantly schools now not only have the right to teachyour kid anything they please without your knowledge

Well... I'm not trying to be flamebait, but why not? I'm not saying the elected local school board shouldn't control things, or that parents shouldn't have input... but school boards don't go and get explicit permission to teach kids reading and math, do they? Probably most boards debate about sex ed, and some kids parents may object. But lets be honest- if someone opts their kids out of sex ed, that kid is going to be teased constantly, and probably find out what was taught from his/her friends anyway. Knowledge is hard to stop.

Even if you home school your child and don't let them watch TV, they'll see naughty billboards just driving down the highway, in the TV in windows of stores, or on the internet if you let them ever get near a computer.  

if I agree to that premise then the schools should start handing out crack pipes, strictly in the interests of knowledge, because minors below the age of consent can't legally have sex. So why teach them how to commit one felony but draw the line at another?

I really have to congratulate a lot of you guys for making a compelling case as to why compulsory public education should be abolished.

But it remains that they could have simply ruled that the lower court ruling stands and cite the usual litany of legal mumbo-jumbo as required to keep ordinary people from understanding the situation.

For the purposes of their deciding that the schools wer right and the parents wrong it was simply unnecessary to pontificate on the lack of some fundamental parental authority; if the authority doesn't exist then why is it necessary to point that out other than to go on record with some political viewpoint?

as well as proving yet again that Shakespeare was a man before his time.

It's expected that the Court will explain its reasoning.  Generally, the language in the opinion that is not essential to the decision is called dicta.  The legally binding and precedential aspects of the opinion are the holding.

Courts have to explain their reasoning so that other courts can understand why they made the decision they did.  

In common law systems, such as the US, Britain, Australia, South Africa, etc, the courts make law through cases.  Dicta is their opportunity to ensure that other courts can apply the law they make.

... I did not say I was a 10th grader.

I am conservative, and this ruling is correct.

This ruling is a perfect example of what we as conservatives NEED to get right. In fact, it's a teaching moment for liberals as well (not leftists, who are totalitarian).

The reason this ruling is a problem is due to a lack of local contol of the schools, which is due to a lack of internal federalism (devolution) within many states, particularly regarding education.

When school curriculums are controlled by the state, or discricts that span multiple towns, the parents lose control of their childrens education. The other problem is teachers unions that span multiple districts. A teachers union should span the town's school, and nothing more.

No child left behind has the same problem.

The SOLUTION is federalism ala Thomas/Madison, NOT Scalia/FDR (Alito?), and internal federalism/devolution within states. Private schools also help.

HOWEVER - now that we have control, it is a great oportunity to be pointing out this dynamic to reasonable liberals. Many liberals are now being exposed to the same federal intrusion that conservatives have been yelling about for decades. We need to point out why.

Liberty does not hold unless it is local. Culture does not hold unless it is local. Civil Society does not hold unless it is local.

a magazine with only a small fraction of the pages devoted to nudie pictures, with the rest devoted to other "clean" topics; and if those pictures are spread randomly throughout the magazine; is it your assertion that the occasional encounter of lewd material is not substantially harmful?

OK, kidding. But seriously, it seems to me that when I was that age, I don't care how randomly or spread out those questions are, they would be the ones that stick out the most to me. And given the discussions that the children had with their parents afterwards about the survey, I suspect I am not alone.

Yes, the S.Ct. has held that parents have rights in determining certain aspects of how they raise their children.

This right, however, makes me a bit queasy and doesn't seem, to me, to fit with the other cases.  I haven't had time to think through all this, but just imagine if the court had held that parents have a right to be the exclusive source of information on sex to their children.  That would effectively destroy all sex education, not just for young children in elementary school, but also in junior high when kids are hitting puberty and in high school when so many are still getting pregnant.  

That is why the right alleged makes me a bit uneasy.  The right alleged also seems to be somehow the reverse of the other constitutional parental rights, but that is just my impression, and, as I said, I haven't had the opportunity to think through this.

Incidentally, I was in second grade about 20 years ago, and I'm from Springfield, Missouri (home of John Ashcroft and Roy Blunt).  Second grade was the first year we had sex education.  It was nothing explicit--it was very general information about the fact that animals reproduce.  We had sex education every year in grade school.  I mention this because Springfield is about as red as you can get, and it was well accepted that sex education is important for children, even young ones, so long as it was appropriate for the age and presented in a manner the children could understand.  So, again, I think we have good reason to be wary of the right claimed by the parents in this case.

I would also dispute your second paragraph.  Schools are controlled at the local level, and mandatory attendence is a state issue.  Whether the child is forced to go to school and what they are introduced to and taught at school can both be controlled by local democratic processes without going to the courts.

Certainly, I certainly think the school wrong to deceive the parents. I do not think, however, that this case vindicated a right for schools to deceive parents.  All this case says is that the parents chose the wrong law to sue under.  It may be that the parents could have sued for fraud.  I don't know about that, but it seems possible.

It doesn't look like they were really interested in that, however.  It looks like they may have been trying to establish a new constitutional right that would have nearly outlawed sex education.

Huh?  To make an apt analogy, having a right is like being pregnant -- either you have a right or you don't.  Since they were suing on due process grounds, the court either needed to decide "yes, you do have such a right" or "no, you don't."  It chose the latter, wisely, I might add.

I'm sure the Supreme Court, if it takes the case, will agree.  The conservatives will agree that the constitution is silent on the issue, and the liberals will agree that there's nothing wrong with this.

Of course, the Constitution does contain such a right, but these parents declined to exercise it.  The Due Process Clause has been held since 1923 to include a right to educate your children outside of public school, including sending them to religious schools.  Personally, I think that right is properly part of the Free Exercise Clause, but it's been on the books a long time.  

If you don't want your kids propagandized by the Left, don't send them to public schools.

I believe the Constitution does grant parents a right have a vocal say in their children's education--not by its spirit, but by its terms.

But the cases upholding that right are the same ones that lead to Roe.

I think that line of cases is correct--yes, I'm pro-choice. The point is simply that, depending on your perspective, you have to take the good with the bad.

I have problems with the specific right alleged in this case, however, and I think the case was probably rightly decided.

I don't see how this implicates religion in the least.

Secular humanism is held with the same religious fervor as any of the predominant religions are adhered to in this country.

The Meyer and Pierce cases, we think, evince the principle that the state cannot prevent parents from choosing a specific educational program -- whether it be religious instruction at a private school or instruction in a foreign language. That is, the state does not have the power to "standardize its children" or "foster a homogenous people" by completely foreclosing the opportunity of individuals and groups to choose a different path of education. We do not think, however, that this freedom encompasses a fundamental Constitutional right to dictate the curriculum at the public school to which they have chosen to send their children. We think it is fundamentally different for the state to say to a parent, "You can't teach your child German or send him to a parochial school," than for the parent to say to the state, "You can't teach my child subjects that are morally offensive to me." The first instance involves the state proscribing parents from educating their children, while the second involves parents prescribing what the state shall teach their children. If all parents had a fundamental constitutional right to dictate individually what the schools teach their children, the schools would be forced to cater a curriculum for each student whose parents had genuine moral disagreements with the school's choice of subject matter. We cannot see that the Constitution imposes such a burden on state educational systems, and accordingly find that the rights of parents as described by Meyer and Pierce do not encompass a broad-based right to restrict the flow of information in the public schools.

The Court adopted this language from an earlier case.  Looks right to me.

that's the court that has been overruled more than any other in the U.S..  It is worth reminding ourselves that Erick inwriting his post did not fault the 9th on constitutional grounds.  It is also  worth bearing in mind that the totally gratuitous comment abot parents having no fundemental rights in the matter shows contempt for the role of parents in a free society.  If the 9th wanted to take the case on purely political or sociological grounds,as they often do, they could have hidden under the blanket of due process but the judges who granted Newdow standing weren't about to do that.  Regarding activism in general; it's a little late to complain about activism,once the cat's out of the bag,as it has been for decades,the tool or weapon,whichever you prefer,will inevitably spread in it's use.  Not only precedence is to be considered but the brute fact that if only one side draws that particular sword  they get to dominate and write all the rules.  I woulld'n want the 9th or that type of jurisprudence to go unhobbled or unanswered.

So I guess you propose that we don't teach our children about drugs, or rape, or murder either since they are all illegal?

And please don't say the Ninth Amendment, the new hope of all those who would constitutionalize everything.

-TS

those are crimes at any age so by Streiff's reasoning we should never teach them about those things.  

Well I'm pretty sure those are crimes at any age so by Streiff's reasoning we should never teach them about those things.

I'm not going to answer your points if you insist on being obdurate or dense.

Streiff made a snide comment about sex being illegal for anyone under the age of 18 thus making it improper to teach children.

That isn't a good reason to not teach children about sex just as it would not be a good reason not to teach children about drugs or rape or any other crime.

I'm sure we can all agree that our children don't need to be taught the graphic details about sex when they are 7 years old.  But that doesn't mean that we should bury our heads in the sand over the matter either.

with J. Scalia in a quote as your signature - see my comment downthread about his opinion of Pierce v. Society of Sisters (though I credit you from reading your posts that you would hold to a position of judicial restraint and the parents should have gone elsewhere - at least from what I remember of reading your comments last night)

proposing we don't instruct our children on how to commit felonies, safely or otherwise. I know, that's some outside the box thinking, the idea that government employees might actually support teaching behavior that's not anti-social and not illegal but at heart I am an idealist.

How many snarky comments have I seen on RS along the lines of "sorry, but that right isn't in my copy of the Constitution"?

What I get from this diary is that "originalism" and "textualism" are just code words for a certain set of preferred results, except perhaps among a small group of law professors and theoreticians.  99% of the conservatives in this diary are outraged by the decision, even though it's obvious that the Constitution says nothing about parental rights or controlling the flow of information to your children.

If you follow the privacy or substantive due process line of cases, sure, you can get there, but I sure thought originalists considered those cases to be constitutional outrages.

Results, results, results.  I thought conservatives weren't supposed to care about results, only that the Constitution was faithfully applied in accordance with what it actually says.  Where are all the conservative responses saying "I'm glad the court interpreted the Constitution correctly, and I think this problem should be solved through the legislative process by voting out the school board"?  Maybe, just maybe, I've been sold a false bill of goods regarding what conservatives really want from judges.  There's not even some kind of reasonable split between the commenters who believe in originalism and the commenters who want a particular result here - it's none of the former and all of the latter.

By the way, there are a lot of parents in this country who don't want their children to be taught "Intelligent Design" in school.  Do they, also, have a fundamental constitutional right to be the exclusive decisionmakers regarding what their child learns?

They can move.

since I took a sex ed class but I don't recall being given a play by play on how to have sex.  That kinda came naturally to me.

I recall sex ed class being about teaching children what sex is and what the consequences of sex are.  

Sex Ed isn't shop class.

How do you teach a child what rape is if they don't know what sex is?

that free exercise should include your right to send your children to religious schools rather than private schools, a proposition with which I would tend to agree.

I don't think he said that the present case has anything to do with free exercise.

idiocy, even for you flyerhawk. If you had bothered to read before posting you'd know you are totally mispreresenting my point. I'm not saying anything about teaching children things are wrong, what I'm against is teaching them how to do things that are wrong.

I never advocated teaching children how to commit murder or how to commit rape and I don't advocate teaching them the technical fine points of how to engage in illicit sexual activity.

Streiff made a snide comment about sex being illegal for anyone under the age of 18 thus making it improper to teach children.

That isn't a good reason to not teach children about sex just as it would not be a good reason not to teach children about drugs or rape or any other crime.

You'll never outwit Flyerhawk, you do realize that by now, don't you?

because of their age.  We teach children how to drive before they are allowed to drive.  We teach children how to vote before they are allowed to vote.  

If you don't want your children to learn about sex I can respect that.  But I don't agree with this line of reasoning at all.

Keeps me from responding to this.

that the Democrat Congress in 1978 added hundreds of new judicial seats in order to give Carter the opportunity to name hundreds of district and circuit court judges...

That is why we currently have such an awful 9th circuit...  A ton of those seats were out West...

That was the most offensive "power grab" (to use a moonbat term from the current era) in at least half a century...

GOPers need to show some cajones and ignore the blue slips from Boxer et al out West...  The fact that they couldn't ram Chris Cox onto the 9th Circuit because of Babs Boxer is a travesty...

Compare: Prospective harm v. injury in fact.

I leave you to sort that out.

That it doesn't matter what argument anyone here advances about any matter whatsoever -- Flyerhawk will claim that it's irrelevant or inconsequential because of the holes in the argument.  You can't win with a person like this.  I know.  I've tried.  

differences between teaching someone to drive and teaching someone to commit a felony. But to the point, we don't teach kids to drive at age 7. And driving on private property isn't a crime for 7 year old anyway. And we don't teach kids of any age how to vote illegally, in fact I really doubt there is a single school in the US that has classes in how to vote in federal elections.

This may have escaped your notice but the human race did a pretty good job reproducing itself before the advent of paid pervs in the school system.

His cast of mind, and it's completely indefatigable.  Flyerhawk will always find an exit door for anything you think you've pinned him/her down on that just discredits your argument and makes you look like a fool.  That's why I don't engage him in discussions any longer.  I knew when I first heard him talk about how the Rove story wasn't going to continue to be the most important news for Liberals and Leftists that he might very well be a compulsive liar, and one who is moreover animated by a sense of moral superiority.  You cannot win an argument against such a person, because the concept of argument as properly understood doesn't exist in their mind.

Hardly. I'm sure you feel triumphant in a "gotcha" moment, but how about a reality check.

The objection most people are making here is based on an unfair or unequal treatment. That is to say, the 9th circuit is happy to produce new privacy rights, new anything rights, so long as those are no endorsement of traditional values. They now abandon that stance and suddenly care about the constitution because it promotes their ongoing educational brainwashing agenda.

Guess what? We get to bitch about the courts visible bias even if we don't think there is a legal basis for the parent's to sue.

You'll excuse me if I don't see much of a triumph on your part.

The outrage here is at the school board, the attack on the children of this school by lunatic leftwing dirtbags, and the obvious and blatant biased treatment of the parents at the hands of the court.

The 9th is already well past the stage of originalism. They can't suddenly become adherents just to satisfy an agenda. That's just bias. And we get to complain about it. To paraphrase a funny statement I once heard, "If you're gonna rule wrong, rule right."

But if the questions looked like this, they'd have ruled against the school so fast your head would have spun:

7. Know anyone who is Christian
   
   
17. Said the word "God" recently
    
    
22. Believe that morals derive from God's Word
    
    
23. Said the word "Jesus" recently
    
    
26. Thinking about how I love God
    
    
34. Not trusting people because they aren't Christian
    
    
40. Getting scared or upset when I think about people that aren't Christian
    

are you saying you'd be ok with this ruling if it came from conservative judges, but not if it came from liberal ones?

You have two sets of parents who are upset with what their children are being exposed to in school.  The liberal parents are told to move, but the conservative parents have a constitutional right to protect their children from the objectionable material.

I'm sure the Supreme Court, if it takes the case, will agree.  The conservatives will agree that the constitution is silent on the issue, and the liberals will agree that there's nothing wrong with this.

Well, if the Constitution is silent on the perpetration of fraud, I feel much better now.

I didn't even say I wasn't ok with the ruling per se. I said I wasn't OK with the 9th Circuit's bias toward these parents.

I think that the parents have other, better avenues than the courts. Although there does seem to be a constitutional case to be made based on other precedents, linked in someone's comments above, it would be much better by far to change the policy through policy channels rather than through some type of court protection, if for no other reason than that it might lead to other such rulings.

I'm not convinced there is not a constitutional case having read the above link. But I'd rather it weren't handled in the court at all.

Which in no way lets the 9th off the hook for their blatant double-standards.

I'm just telling it like it is.

To sum up this issue, it sounds like a strict constructionist interpretation lead to a perverse decision.

Seems like we would all be better off to:

1. Support an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution.
   
2. Argue that sexuality is a private issue.
   
3. Argue that this behavior unreasonably violates the protected sexual privacy of the children.

I'm surprised the court didn't see it that way.

"there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. "

This smacks of Hillary's Clinton's comment of the the old African Proverb, 'It takes a village to raise a child.'  No wonder so many parents have chosen to homeschool their children!

I long for the days (I'm a grandmother) when school was used to teach English, Literature, Math, science, etc - and not intrude on the upbringing of our children. Sex education should be left up to the parents.

There are many teaching in school these days whose character comes into question, and I would not want those people teaching my child things of which I disapprove!  

Also, don't forget former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, who thought masturbation should be taught to these young grade school children!

the logical extension of previous lines of jurisprudence extolled by those who pride themselves on opposition to originalism.  The fact that the Ninth Circus declined to take that route is an indication of the ideological and cultural bigotry of its members, and the fact that so many liberals are crowing about the technical correctness of the decision is evidence that they, too, are not concerned with either logic or the coherence of a legal tradition, but with specific results.  In sum, living constitution jurisprudence is great when it gives them Roe, and originalism is great when it means that rank degenerates can expose young children to sexual questioning and/or material.  Or, if you prefer, LC jurisprudence is the ticket when they want to abolish a traditional American legal practice, and originalism is just fine when LC will not yield the anti-traditional result, but originalism will yield that result.  That's really all that is going on behind the technical questions of the law.

We have one of those big pipe overhead entrances to the farm.  My husband says that we will hang the first young man who comes calling from it.  He believes it will help us in dealing the any future hormonally challenged suitors.  :-]

Seriously, a friend of mine has a sixteen year old girl who came home from an evening school function thing with a small hickey on her neck.  After a short discussion when she arrived home, daddy called young male friend and they talked for about 30 minutes about how very important the 16 year old is to her daddy.  After much Yes Sir, No Sir, they are all quite confident that young man will be careful with young lady.  Daddys are good things.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

These are all liberty issues.

If you read the opinion, and I did, you'll note a distinct lack of any claims about originalism.

The court explicitly accepts the modern substantive due process jurisprudence which lead to Roe, even citing Roe at one point.  It is just saying that the right alleged does not exist within that jurisprudence.

I'm having a bit of trouble connecting "liberty" here and the "right of parents to have a vocal say in their children's education".

When you say that the Constitution grants this right not by its spirit but by its very terms, I was hoping to see something actually textual: "The right of parents to have a vocal say in their children's education shall not be infringed" or something like that.

To conflate everything into "these are all liberty issues" strikes me as extraordinarily useless.  We could just as easily claim some fundamental right to welfare, because "these are all property issues" also guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

As disturbing as the Court's ruling is, and as justifiably upset as the parents are, the solution is to look to the legislatures and to restrain the courts.  In this particular case, I'm afraid the Ninth probably did rule correctly.  It burns me to say that, but that to me appears to be the cost of holding on to some principle of judicial originalism/textualism/whatever-ism.

-TS

It doesn't seem right to jump from implicit right to privacy to originalism or vive versa to get the result a given court desires.

What troubles me is a case like this before an originalist majority Supreme Court.

If such a court is stuck with the same outcome the childrens' privacy will be invaded without impediment.

I'm fine with that correction.  However, it doesn't change the underlying substance of my objection, because there really is no principled basis to assume that the right to privacy does not extend to the education of children on precisely those matters liberals regard as falling under the penumbra of privacy.  Unless they really want to go down the road of declaring that the interests of the state (when they are animated by liberal concerns) supervene the interests of parents, that such state interests can be upheld even against the religiously-based opposition of parents, and that children have privacy or liberty interests which must be vindicated against parents.  

And if that is what some wish to accomplish, I can assure them that it will get ugly.  Really ugly.  And not for parents.

Sorry for being a bit snarky there.

as being snarky.  Not in the least, in fact.  My gripe is that there truly is a double-standard at work here, in the Ninth Circus: privacy for liberal interests, no privacy for conservative interests; or fourteenth amendment due process claims for liberal interests, no such claims when the interest vindicated would be conservative in effect.  

textualist evidence of framers' intent that challenges this fundamental portion of the ruling?

there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it.

Note:  California could certainly pass a law making this the case and it should probably be upheld but it doesn't appear as if there is a statute to this affect.

One group of parents is upset because their children were already exposed to a thing. One group is upset because their children will be exposed to the thing.

In one case, the injury has already become fact, whether there is a legally cognizable injury or not. In the other case, there is a chance to move and avoid the harm.

Simple, if you pay attention.

Thanks for calling me a liar.

And what I said back then was that the Plame story would be drowned out by SCOTUS appointments until the Grand Jury comes back.  Let's remember that this comment was made prior to Roberts being nominated.  

I don't argue to win.  I argue to gain insight.  I fully realize that I will never convince anyone of anything on a message board.  And I feel not excitement over scoring cyber points.

By choosing to post on a site that generally disagrees with my POV I will always be in conflict with the other people here.  However I don't try to make anyone look like a fool, even when they call me a compulsive liar.  I respect Thomas and Streiff eventhough they rarely bother to show me much respect.

I respect the vast majority of posters here.  But that doesn't mean that I will simply cede that the general views here are the "right" views.

Indeed.  Some folks say they would homeschool if not for all the time it takes.  But do they have the time to continually police their public school?

...is not necessarily constitutionally impermissible. Isn't this what conservatives have been trying to tell liberals for decades?

The parents' remedy, here, was to pressure the school board to have the teacher and the administrators responsible horsewhipped, and/or to pursue civil claims in state court. It is to stretch the Fourteenth Amendment beyond all reason to find within its "penumbras and emanations" not merely a generalized right to privacy, but also a right to exclusive control over what one's children are taught.

I'm certainly sensitive to the argument that judges like Reinhardt, who've repeatedly twisted the Constitution into a balloon animal to advance a liberal agenda, suddenly turn into strict constructionists when someone asks them to advance a conservative agenda. But here I think the right thing was done, even if for the wrong reasons.

because it is often taught to kids who do not have their drivers licenses and are not old enough to drive.  And you don't want to instruct children on how to commit a crime do you?

Arguing that we shouldn't teach sex ed because it's illegal for kids to have sex is a bit ridiculous considering that the criminality of engaging in sex disappears when they pass the age of consent.  In fact, in many states, it's not illegal for kids to have sex depending on the age of their partner.

I think we can all agree that sex is something that almost everyone will engage in at some point or another.  I think we can also all agree that there are potential consequences to engaging in sex, regardless of what variety you engage in.  What is so objectionable about providing kids education when we know they will engage in sex at some point in their life and there are serious consequences that can result from being uninformed about the potential consequences?  

We may all take knowledge of sex for granted, but I was struck when I had an HIV test a number of years ago by something the doctor said.  One of the questions that I was asked was "do you know how HIV is transmitted?"  I said, "Sure, blood, semen, other bodily fluids."  The doctor then told me how surprised I would be by how many people don't know that simple fact.  I was stunned, that is such a basic health fact, I could not comprehend someone not knowing it.  What that told me was that there are kids/adults out there who are going into their first sexual experiences (whether it's a felony or not) without basic knowledge about what kind of risks they're exposing themselves too.  The only way we change that is through education.

the breadth of litigation that we'd see if the court had ruled otherwise.  Schools would probably have to stop teaching certain types of science because of litigation from creationists/IDers.  Any type of education touching on religion would be radioactive from a litigation perspective.

For the court to have held otherwise would basically provide parents with a constitutional basis to litigate every disagreement they have with a school's curriculum.

of nonsense has been addressed.

Driving, even under age, is not necessarily against the law. For instance, on private property.

In fact, in many states, it's not illegal for kids to have sex depending on the age of their partner.

This is false in all cases. In all states, sex with a minor is statutory rape or an equivalent sexual offense. In some states the penalty is greater for sex between a minor and someone above the age of majority but in no case is sex below the age of consent legal.

What is so objectionable about providing kids education when we know they will engage in sex at some point in their life and there are serious consequences that can result from being uninformed about the potential consequences?

None, so long as parents give informed consent and it doesn't take place during the public school day.

One of the questions that I was asked was "do you know how HIV is transmitted?"  I said, "Sure, blood, semen, other bodily fluids."  The doctor then told me how surprised I would be by how many people don't know that simple fact.

People believe all kinds of stupid things it doesn't mean that we should teach it in school.

What that told me was that there are kids/adults out there who are going into their first sexual experiences (whether it's a felony or not) without basic knowledge about what kind of risks they're exposing themselves too.

That is one lesson you could draw from it. Why it is the responsiblity of schools to teach the ins and outs of this particular illegal activity and not teach how to choose good dope or test smack for purity just escapes me.

We're talking about seven year olds, sport. Some questions are simply not appropriate.

Nobody teaches drivers ed to kids who don't have a learners' permit. Almost ready to drive. Bad analogy.

You're obviously not a parent. My advice? Keep your rocket in your pocket & you won't have to sweat out another HIV test.

Kelo does not at all contradict the text of the Constitution.  From a strict construction point of view it was correctly decided.  Which is now and always has been precisely the problem with strict construction: it is downright contemptuous of the rights of American citizens.

" but also a right to exclusive control over what one's children are taught."

But this exlusive right needs to exist - but only through home schooling, or private school, or if one likes, vouchers.

Regardless, the real problem behind the ruling is real. Parents are sick of not having local control of schools. But I think this needs fixed at the state level.

Particularly #22 and #40.  Morality and the Ninth Circuit don't play well together.

This is false in all cases. In all states, sex with a minor is statutory rape or an equivalent sexual offense. In some states the penalty is greater for sex between a minor and someone above the age of majority but in no case is sex below the age of consent legal

Qualified just enough to make it illegal in all states.

How bout this one.  Two 17 year kids.  Both are minors.  They have consensual sex.  How many states is that illegal in?

Name the Justices who were in the minority in Kelo.

science or a trick question. And it certainly isn't framing. There are a lot of issues.

If either party is below the legal age of consent a crime has been committed. That's why a female teacher having sex with at 17 year old basketball player results in a prison term.

There has been a move in recent years to try to rewrite the statutory rape laws to reduce the severity of the offense if the two parties are below age of consent or the older party is very close in age to the one below the age of consent, from those cases where you have a 17 yo girl/boy and a partner who is 26 or older.

And you always have prosecutorial discretion to consider.

As to your question, other than adding them up I can't tell you. In some states 17 is legal. In some it isn't. In some 17 and 17 is legal while 17 and 30 is a felony.

But the idea that any state says it's okay for underage kids to have sex is just incorrect.

but the school now has more right to introduce my child to sex than I do

This is hardly accurate.  The Court said that parents do not have the exclusive right to introduce their children to sex.  The ruling actually makes no judgement about who has more or less right, and indeed most state and local laws would give the parents more rights (insofar as schoolteachers are generally not encouraged to open discussion with their students on matters of pornography, for example.)

The point I was trying to make is that it would be ludicrous for the Court to hold that parents did indeed possess the absolute right to exclusively educate their children about sex.  Think about the box that opens for litigation: every time a child sees a sexually suggestive ad on a billboard, the parents have grounds for suit.  Every time a peer asks a seven year old if they know anyone who has "done it," (and other silly permutations of that question) the parents have grounds for suit.  Heck, even some of the most acceptable, family-oriented material sometimes references sex as something between a loving, married couple.

That the parents have more right to govern the development of their children than other entities is not challenged by the Court.  The Court just disagrees that parents have the exclusive right of directing their child's  development, because that is an impossibility.

So if a child actually goes to school and is exposed to Intelligent Design teachings that the parents weren't aware would take place (let's assume, as is true in most cases, that the school system did not advertise the curriculum in advance), you would agree that the parents have a federal constitutional right to redress?

I am aware of no other circumstance in which the existence of a constitutional right depends on whether you can move in advance of a violation, so that's why I believe your distinction is legally irrelevant.  

So if a child actually goes to school and is exposed to Intelligent Design teachings that the parents weren't aware would take place (let's assume, as is true in most cases, that the school system did not advertise the curriculum in advance), you would agree that the parents have a federal constitutional right to redress?

I said that there is a difference between the two. Pay attention.

I am aware of no other circumstance in which the existence of a constitutional right depends on whether you can move in advance of a violation, so that's why I believe your distinction is legally irrelevant.

Properly, you are aware of no judicially constructed right to that effect. There's a large difference. Hence, the distinction and its relevance.

[quote]Driving, even under age, is not necessarily against the law. For instance, on private property. [/quote]

Problem is drivers ed classes teach kids how to drive on streets.  At least mine did.

[quote]This is false in all cases. In all states, sex with a minor is statutory rape or an equivalent sexual offense. In some states the penalty is greater for sex between a minor and someone above the age of majority but in no case is sex below the age of consent legal.[/quote]

The problem for your argument is that in many states the age of consent is defined such that high school age kids can legally have sex.  Many states have 16 as their AOC.  And other states have sex offense laws that permit (or rather don't prohibit) children of certain ages (15 or so) to have sex with partners who are within a certain range of their age (2 years or 3 years).  So while you are correct that it is illegal to have sex with someone below the age of consent in every state, the age of consent does not neatly line up with the age that most kids are when they graduate from high school.  So, in all instances, sex education would not be teaching kids about something that it is illegal for them to engage in.

[quote]None, so long as parents give informed consent and it doesn't take place during the public school day.[/quote]

I have no problem with parental consent, but what is objectionable about the education taking place during the school day?

[quote]People believe all kinds of stupid things it doesn't mean that we should teach it in school.[/quote]

But when it is an activity that all people are going to engage in and involves risks that all people have the possibility of being exposed to, why should factual information regarding sex be necessarily out-of-bounds for a public education setting?

[quote]Why it is the responsiblity of schools to teach the ins and outs of this particular illegal activity and not teach how to choose good dope or test smack for purity just escapes me. [/quote]

Hmmm, maybe because doing dope or smack is something that is illegal no matter what age you are, is not something that everyone is going to engage in, is not something anyone *should* do and is not something that is a fundamental part of who we are.  Your working with a very difficult analogy by trying to compare illegal narcotics to sex.  You have to admit that sex is something that nearly every person is going to engage in, while illegal drugs are not.

And I don't think that it is necessarily the responsibility of the schools to teach sex ed, although it is generally the best forum for doing so given the educational nature of the setting and the basic biological information is seemingly not coming from anywhere else other than rap music, Hollywood movies and television.

you can get more from an man with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone :-)

defended what went on in this California (I assume) school district.  Personally, I don't think that sex education is appropriate for seven year olds.  But somehow whenever discussions of sex education arise, the inappropriateness of sex ed for seven or eight year olds somehow gets used to justify withholding sex education for all kids.  And I think that there is nothing wrong with appropriate sex ed for kids of an appropriate age.  Just where that line is drawn is certainly debatable.

Some questions are simply not appropriate.

For seven year olds, you're absolutely right.  I never said otherwise

Nobody teaches drivers ed to kids who don't have a learners' permit. Almost ready to drive. Bad analogy.

You're wrong there.  I had to complete drivers ed before I could get my learners permit.  And high school kids are almost ready to engage in sex.  Nice try though.

You're obviously not a parent. My advice? Keep your rocket in your pocket & you won't have to sweat out another HIV test.

You are making a lot of assumptions (and giving advice) based on no information about me.  And as long as we're passing advice out, my advice to you is that if you haven't already had one, get an HIV test.  My cousin died of AIDS without every knowing he was HIV positive.  

But you still never explained why the court's ruling could not stand, and be understood, absent this little bit of social-engineering tacked on.

I yield to no-one in my conservatism, but I firmly beieve that Kelo was correctly decided. If a question exists as to how we ought to interpret "public use", then deference in that case should be given to the democratic institutions.  It may stink, but it ain't unconstitutional.

who can't read.

When you took your driver's ed "on the street" you had a learner's permit and a licensed driver in the car. Otherwise you were breaking the law. Hence my point.

So while you are correct that it is illegal to have sex with someone below the age of consent in every state,

Bottom line. Glad to see you walked back from the pretty exotic position you expressed earlier. The rest of the stuff is window dressing. Underage sex is illegal. Finito.

I have no problem with parental consent, but what is objectionable about the education taking place during the school day?

Because I don't care to pay money to have a marginally-to-unqualified person teach my child about a life changing (in all circumstances) and potentially life threatening activity.

why should factual information regarding sex be necessarily out-of-bounds for a public education setting?There is no problem so long as it is addressed in the same way we address drug abuse, smoking, and drinking. Don't do it. That, unfortunately, is not the takeaway message in most places. The attitude of "they're going to do it anyway" is self-fulfilling, self-defeating, and reprehensible. At least if a parent does it they inherit the results, the idea that I'm paying to have my child untaught what he-and-she have learned at home is intolerable.

Your working with a very difficult analogy by trying to compare illegal narcotics to sex.  You have to admit that sex is something that nearly every person is going to engage in, while illegal drugs are not. I admit nothing of the kind and I see you didn't mention the reference to underage drinking. Just because a person is going to do something in the future, like get married or die to name a couple, doesn't mean it has a place in the school system.

generally the best forum for doing so given the educational nature of the setting and the basic biological information is seemingly not coming from anywhere else other than rap music, Hollywood movies and television.

Really? Seems to me I control a lot of the latter but I have to send my child to school on my dime.

I think you overstate. I have been working off and on, on a piece entitled "Judicial Activism in Three Dimensions". It is entirely too simplistic to create a liberal = activist vs. conservative = constructionist model.

That said, one can safely say that it is virtually impossible to find a liberal judge who favors restraint and who is able to separate personal policy preference from judicious application of the law. One the other hand,a majority of conservative judges favor restraint and textualism. Where things tend to get mixed up is with a strain of Libertarianism/ Natural Law Theory which interprets any increase in government power at the expense of the indiviual as de facto activism.    

I think we get confused because we try to view everything through our two-party lens.

why does the left become apoplectic if someone says we should teach kids about gun safety in school. The left likes teaching them how to put condoms on bananas because sex is part of life and they need to know how to deal with it but God forbid we should teach them how to safely handle firearms.

Liberal nonsense.

And I didn't conclusively say that you were a liar, I said that you might be.  In any case, yeah, you're right -- it's tough to convince someone of anything on a website like RedState.  Maybe I got a bit too steamed up.  I might have a constructive criticism later, in the meantime, I regret the sentiment.  

I have no problem if children are taught gun safety.  

I probably woulnd't want my children's school doing it but I live in very anti-gun New Jersey.  

This is a great post, among other things because it creates a classic confiusion in the audience:

Something may be awful, it may be despicable, yet it may be none of the court's business to rule on it.

Many of the posts above talk about the ruling, may talk about the issue, and most conflate the two. So let us disentangle them a little.

1)The idea to ask these sorts of questions of children without parental involvement was a truly, truly stupid and bad idea. No parent in their right mind wants their children exposed to this sorts of nonsense on the whim of some grad student. That the school had no problem with the exercise is indicative of the arrogance of the system in general. Some of the posters (teachers) reflected this high-handedness. Note that the court (rightly) made no distinction as to whether the content of the questionnaire, per se, was good or bad, right or wrong. But all reasonable people can see that it was, at best, a hideous idea to start with.

2)#1 does not mean that it is in any way unconstitutional to have the public school system determine what it does and does not teach without prior authorization by the parents. We as parents have the right to remove our children from public schools if we choose. It is not a coercive relationship. I can home school, or send my kids to private school, if I am unhappy with the way in which my public school handles things.

Like most of our posters today, I find the 9th Circuit to be a judicial abomination. But that doesn't mean this decision is wrong. If we wish to vomit,it is because of what the school did, not what the Court did.      

When you took your driver's ed "on the street" you had a learner's permit and a licensed driver in the car. Otherwise you were breaking the law. Hence my point.

Ummm, actually I didn't have my learners permit.  I had to take drivers ed before I could even apply for my learners permit.  Maybe things have changed, maybe not.  But the fact remains that I was taught something that it would have been illegal for me to engage in to prepare me for the day that I could legally engage in the activity.

Why is it so objectionable to teach kids about something that we all know they are going to engage in at some point in their life BEFORE they engage in it?  Isn't it better for someone to know what they are getting themselves into before they do it?

Bottom line. Glad to see you walked back from the pretty exotic position you expressed earlier. The rest of the stuff is window dressing. Underage sex is illegal. Finito.

I haven't changed my position at all.  I never argued that it was not illegal to violate the age of consent laws.  And what you describe as "window dressing" really drives a hole straight through your argument because as long as it is legal for some high school age kids to have sex, your argument falls apart because sex ed taught to those kids would not be teaching kids to engage in activity that breaks the law.  Your unwillingness to deal with that fact and, instead, describe it as "window dressings" speaks volumes.

Because I don't care to pay money to have a marginally-to-unqualified person teach my child about a life changing (in all circumstances) and potentially life threatening activity.

So your objection has less to do with the legality of kids engaging in sex and more to do with (a) questions about how your tax dollars are spent and (b) the qualifications of the person teaching sex ed.  I would suggest that there are far more constructive ways to deal with both of those points than to advocate an outright ban on sex ed in public schools.  

There is no problem so long as it is addressed in the same way we address drug abuse, smoking, and drinking. Don't do it. That, unfortunately, is not the takeaway message in most places. The attitude of "they're going to do it anyway" is self-fulfilling, self-defeating, and reprehensible. At least if a parent does it they inherit the results, the idea that I'm paying to have my child untaught what he-and-she have learned at home is intolerable.

So it sounds like you would not oppose sex ed that teaches all the reasons that kids should abstain from sex, am I right about that?  In your mind, where does sex ed cross the line from appropriate to in-appropriate?  Personally, I have no problem with sex ed that teaches all of the consequences of sex (STDs, emotional impact, etc.).  I think you and I would differ on the teaching of ways to protect against those consequences.  Abstinence is certainly what should be taught foremost because it is the only 100% effective way to avoid all the downsides to sex.  However, I would go further (than I imagine you would) and would support teaching the practicals ways that exist to protect oneself against the consequences (i.e. birth control).  In fact, I have been very impressed with the success of Uganda's anti-HIV program that stresses abstinence first, monogamy second and condoms third.  I know, I know, you will probably respond that it sends mixed messages, but I just think that it is naive to expect kids to adhere to one single message of abstinence and deprive them of all information that is not consistent with that message.

As for not wanting to have the public schools un-teach what you teach at home, I think you should have an absolute right to opt your children out of sex ed at public school.  If you don't, that is something you should take up with your school board.

I admit nothing of the kind and I see you didn't mention the reference to underage drinking. Just because a person is going to do something in the future, like get married or die to name a couple, doesn't mean it has a place in the school system.

Wow!  How do you get around admitting that most people will engage in sex and most people won't engage in illegal drug use?  That's a pretty incredible assertion on your part.

I looked back through the post I was responding to and didn't see anything about underage drinking.  Perhaps you made it in another post?

Granted, that there is no reason that we necessarily *have* to teach sex ed in public schools, but, at the same time, there is really nothing that compels us *not* to teach sex ed in public schools.  I just think that, on balance, there is nothing wrong with teaching kids of an appropriate age appropriate information about sexual and reproductive health.  

Really? Seems to me I control a lot of the latter but I have to send my child to school on my dime.

Then you are what I would call a successful and caring parent.  You strike me as someone who is passionate enough about this issue to make the right calls as far as your kids are concerned.  I think that you are the type of person who would take an active role in your kids sex ed and would talk to them about your values and teach them about it.  You would probably hold back some information that I would be inclined to give my kids, but that's just a matter of personal preference.  However, and you must admit this, people like you are closer to the exception than the rule.  

I don't worry about parents who actually take an active role in their kids sex ed.  The problem I have is with the others who are either too embarrassed or too stupid to give their kids any meaningful information and, yet, actively work against that information being provided in public schools.  Kids are going to get this information one way or another.  Either it comes from you, comes from the school, comes from rap music or comes from their peers.  Whether you or I like it or not, our kids will make their own choices about when to have sex for the first time, who to have sex with, and how to go about having sex.  You have to ask yourself whether you want your child to be having sex with someone drawn from a populace that is largely ignorant about sexual health or one that has, at least, some understanding of sexual health.

And I don't know you, so maybe this does not hold true for you, but every parent that I hear that says they have control over what their child is hearing/seeing/absorbing from our media/culture generally has a child who is getting a lot more than what they know about.  Maybe you're different or your children are at an age when you can effectively control what they absord, but my advice to you is to always assume that your kids are getting something more than what you know about.

this afternoon, but it is quitting time here.  I hope you and your family have a nice evening.

ever had my kids in, parents have had the ability and the right to opt their children out of any and all sex education classes.  Not sure at what level this right is given, but your stated fear is already a fact in most places other than California it would seem.

I can't say that I am aware of anyone who excersized that right.

I do remember in high school a friend of mine wasn't allowed to read "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" with our English class, because his mother objected to the content.  He read another selection in the library during class time instead (it was ironic though, considering he was already sexually active, and knew and used all the words in the book).

more right, given that the school was permitted to lie to parents about the content of a survey.

I think this dead horse has been beaten.

so that parents' only option isn't the morally bankrupt, along with permission to decieve public school system.

I honestly think this is the best and only remedy to the problem.  

Let me rephrase: a right to exclusive control over what one's children are taught in public schools.

Again, I carry no brief for the teacher or the administrators responsible for this. It strikes me as profoundly stupid and morally indefensible to inquire into the sexual behaviors of seven-year-olds. These people should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.

But -- and here's the important part -- the tarring, feathering, and running-out-of-town is a local or perhaps state-level concern, not a federal one. It's not unconstitutional for public school educators to be contemptible.

The difficulty is in the terminology used here to discuss the issue.

The right, as explicated by the courts, is not a right to a "vocal say in your child's education."

The Supreme Court has held that the right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children is a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.

That quote is from the case that is the subject of this entire thread.  And this:

"[I]t cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."

Liberty, in the abstract, means in part the ability to make decisions without interference with the government.  That ability in respect to how your children are raised and educated is protected by the constitution to some extent.

It isn't absolute, but yes, there is liberty in determining what school your child will attend and what subjects they will study.

Incidentally, welfare is a quasi-property right.  The S.Ct. has said that as long as Congress maintains programs, it cannot deny those quasi-property rights to people seeking them wihtout due process or without equal protection.

If you want specific language from the Constitution, I think you will be sadly disappointed.  It just doesn't provide rights in specific language.

"Congress shall make no law infringing the freedom of speech."

What is speech?

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

What does "excessive" mean?

Textualism or strict constructionism may be fine, but they don't get you very far.  Not because the Constitution lacks text, but because the meaning of the text isn't clear.

another case of the Liberals engaging in strict constructionism, and defeating an attempt by the Conservatives to engage in judicial activism.

<quote>Liberals engaging in strict constructionism</quote&gt

That's a little like saying that a dog that fails to spill any of his own water is engaging in water conservation. You assign far too much in the way of motivation.

Suffice it to say it is possible to arrive at the same decision a constructionist would without being a strict constructionist yourself.

I'm sure those judges would agree with you, since being a strict constructionist is one thing a liberal judge certainly does not wish to lay claim to.

Flyerhawk, I believe one can be a strict constructionist and reject this decision -- but it requires a consistency that some here do seem to find unpalatable.

I was not aware of this case until the decision became news, but I had in mind to put forward an hypothetical example much like this to illustrate the consequences of saying there is no "right to privacy."

Based on my studies, I believe our founders used the term "liberty" not as it is often used today to refer to unrestricted movement in space, but rather to refer to a lack of restriction across the entire range of human action.  Our founders believed in an individual sphere of liberty that extended as far as another person's nose, and that the freedom of individuals to act as they wish should not be restrained by the power of the government unless such restraint is necessary to prevent significant harm or to protect the common good.  In other words, they believed the right of liberty is fundamental but not absolute.

There may have been laws and practices counter to this concept of liberty at the time our Constitution was initially adopted.  Indeed, I believe the founders recognized this and were realistic in understanding that there would always be a gap between the ideal of liberty and the reality of liberty.  The presence of such a gap, however, does not change the meaning they attached to the term.

If we understand "liberty" as the founders did, then I believe we must recognize that it encompasses not only the right to act as we wish within our sphere but also the right to keep both other persons and the power of the government from intruding into that sphere.  This is what the court means when it refers to "a right to privacy."  Again, we are talking about rights that are fundamental but not absolute.

By my reading, based on what the words meant at the time they were written, our constitution is designed to protect the liberty rights I have described above.  It does not "grant" these rights.  Rather it recognizes them as a priori, while also implicitly recognizing them as vulnerable to abuse even by a government based upon the consent of the governed.  So I believe there is a constitutionally recognized and protected "right to privacy."  

However, I believe Roe v. Wade is bad law because it fails to recognize that the liberty rights of a woman must be balanced, not against the interests of the state in "potential life," but against the obligation of the state to protect the rights of the actual life that exists within the body of the woman.

Turning to the subject of education: Parents do not have absolute rights to act as they wish towards or on behalf of their children.  The government has both a right and an obligation to protect the interests of children.  However, as the guardians of their children, parents have a fundamental right to exercise control over the moral and religious education of their children.  The right to keep the power of the government from being used to override this control is, to my mind, a part of the right to privacy.

Those who would oppose abortion by saying there is no right to privacy need to understand the implications of their position.  If Roe v. Wade is overturned because the court sees new evidence that the embryo/fetus is actual life rather than "potential life," that paves the way for building a national consensus in favor of both life and of the privacy rights of the family.   If, however, Roe v. Wade is overturned on the argument that there is no constitutional right to privacy, that paves the way for government intrusion into far more than what children are taught about sex in school.

As a member of an Institutional review board (IRB) a major research university--this should have never flown in the first place. In order to give assent, the parents should have received the survey in its entirety. This was a major blunder of the California School of Professional Psychology...One that could cost them their certification with the US Dept. of  Health and Human Services, which regulates IRBs.

I will dig into this one and contact the CSPP IRB. The parents have every right to sue the University in this case, too.

as long as the kids are within three years of age, and are both at least 15 years old, sexual intercourse is not a crime.

If the kids are within three years of age, but one (or both) of them are less than 15 years old, the only crime committed during sexual intercourse is Sexual Misconduct, which is a Class C Misdemeanor. (The same level of crime as stealing a candy bar from a grocery store.)

Not quite the same as "statutory rape," which is a Class A, B, or C Felony depending on the age of the victim.

http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/163.html

read or follow discussions particularly well do you?

Statutory rape is mentioned in the context of laws being rewritten, right? Oregon is still a state, right? A misdemeanor is a crime, right?  

Your original comment in this thread:

Yes, I am proposing we don't instruct our children on how to commit felonies, safely or otherwise.

I pointed out that underage sex is NEVER a felony in Oregon, as long as the participants' ages are within three years of each other.

And yet another comment from you in this thread:

But the idea that any state says it's okay for underage kids to have sex is just incorrect.

In Oregon, the age of consent is 18.

And the State clearly says that is is OK for underage kids to have sex, as long as they are both underage, and both 15 or older.

How many times are you going to personally insult me before another moderator finally decides that you need to be banned, I wonder?

are the answers for you:

I pointed out that underage sex is NEVER a felony in Oregon, as long as the participants' ages are within three years of each other.

"NEVER" doesn't include exceptions. This proves my point in two ways, you don't bother reading anything, ever, and a 15-18; 14-17 (as a "scientist" I'm sure you can do the +3 calculations) would be a felony.

And the State clearly says that is is OK for underage kids to have sex, as long as they are both underage, and both 15 or older.

Hmmm. Under 15 isn't 15 and older. Under 15 would be underage.

And get over your bleating like a little girl about your hurt feelings. Try reading posts, and better yet reading what you post, and maybe it will stop.

It's actually getting rather funny having you repeatedly criticise me for not reading, while you continue to make fundamental errors of reading comprehension.

Neither of the cases you mention is a felony (as long as your 15-18 year old couple, and 14-17 year old couple have birthdates such that they are not 3.00 or more years apart in age.

The crime would be Sexual Misconduct (as I stated earlier) which is a Class C Misdemeanor.

Why are you confused about this? I assume you realize that a Misdemeanor is not a Felony.

15 plus 3 is 18. Quibble of birthdays if you much but 15 is followed by 16, then 17, then 18 so if there is 3years and 1 day there three years.

Second, I said crime. I specifically said states were changing their laws.

Third, you're done here.

The beginning of the new "Roberts" era of the Supreme Court must be this: SCOTUS judges must be credible and consistent.

I try to always be consistent.

I hate the tweaking of the "due process" clause that is necessary to force legalized abortion onto the states, and force legalized sodomy onto the states.  I accept that fact that a strict constructionist's interpretation of the due process clause also makes it impossible for parents to enjoin a school on the argument that letting their kids answer a provocative survey violates the parents' due process rights.

It clearly doesn't.

The kids' right to privacy would have been a better argument.

But the ultimate issue is: why didn't the parents press criminal charges against the person who wrote and/or administered the survey.

Footnote: even though the Palmdale School District still maintains that it did nothing wrong, it has removed all of the sex questions from the survey because it wisely realized that these questions will lead to further litigation in the future.

Furthermore, the principal of the school went on record as saying that he would've been offended if his kids had been asked sex questions without his knowledge and consent.

So, in a way, the parents got the result they wanted: the sex questions are gone.  The parents didn't need a court injunction at the end of the litigation.  The sex questions were removed by the school anyway.

State allowed us to rate comments.

the School Board has at least one of the town's perverts on it?

Who else would create and distribute a survey like this to children under the age of ten?  If the school board isn't turned out en masse, the town's citizens have what they deserve.

The use to which the property is to be put is not "public use."  It will be put to "private use."  No interpretation is required, because the terms "public" and "use" have clear definitions.

Does the fact that Congress has the power to create new Circuits, courts, and judgeships imply that they have the power to dissolve an existing Circuit?  

If not, is there anything that would keep Congress from  reducing the jurisdictional territory of the 9th Circuit to just the size of one of those rocks off the coast of San Francisco where the seals like to sun themselves?  They could then create (a) new Circuit(s) to cover the old territory of the 9th.

Can Congress reassign judgeships to other Circuits, where they might do less harm?

Just asking.

is that of a 'slap' suit.  In most cases, just the threat of a lawsuit is enough to get a school district to back down.  If the suit has a reasonable chance to succeed, they fall all over themselves to change their policies.  Witness how successful the ACLU is in having its way with school districts.

The next school board election should be interesting.