Homeschooling Banned in California as State Turns Parents Into Criminals

[speech]

Quote
A California appeals court has ruled that homeschooling of children is illegal unless their parents have teaching credentials from the state.

“California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home,” said Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The court overturned a lower court’s finding that homeschooling did not constitute a violation of child welfare laws.

“California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey said.

The decision stunned parents of the state’s roughly 166,000 homeschooled children. While the court claimed that it was merely clarifying an existing law and not making a new one, the decision leaves the parents of homeschooled children at risk of arrest and criminal prosecution.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=1006.msg2795#msg2795

[noxagol]

If I lived in California, this puts those who would come arrest me at high risk of death by gun shot.

[ladyjade3]

move.

[andrewh817]

Pretty ridiculous I have to say. If people want to pay into the education system without using it all the better for the people who do use the tax dollars.....

This is horrible though because your child will excel so much more through home school, public schools are a huge waste of your child's time.

[berrybunches]

OMG! Me and my dad were just discussing this and wondering if anything had been decided yet! We figured the opposite woudl happen. Terrible but I would like to see the state defend itself if it rounds of these people to put in jail.

I think it will either be overturned or there will be some sort of state ran program to okay parents homeschooling...like a test for parents or free/cheap classes. Not endorsing this idea but I just can't see the parents putting up sending their kids to public school so something will have to be done.

[Fox McCloud]

California: Screwing up things since 1850.

[H Roark]

This is outrageous. And when I read the headline School Forces Student to Remove American Flag Shirt (http://www.infowars.com/?p=4802) I just knew it had to be California. Yup...it is.

[speech]

This is outrageous. And when I read the headline School Forces Student to Remove American Flag Shirt (http://www.infowars.com/?p=4802) I just knew it had to be California. Yup...it is.

Cali is getting ridiculous. This is forcing homeschoolers to use the community approach of training their very own teacher.

[TC95]

Quote
A California appeals court has ruled that homeschooling of children is illegal unless their parents have teaching credentials from the state.

“California is now on the path to being the only state to deny the vast majority of homeschooling parents their fundamental right to teach their own children at home,” said Michael Smith, president of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

The court overturned a lower court’s finding that homeschooling did not constitute a violation of child welfare laws.

“California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey said.

The decision stunned parents of the state’s roughly 166,000 homeschooled children. While the court claimed that it was merely clarifying an existing law and not making a new one, the decision leaves the parents of homeschooled children at risk of arrest and criminal prosecution.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=1006.msg2795#msg2795

This article originally came from prisonplanet.com and David Gutierrez apparently caught on to the California homeschooling ban too late because he's relying on some very old info for his article. Homeschooling remains legal in CA. Read here for the facts: http://www.hslda.org/docs/media/2008/200808080.asp

If this decision had been overturned, I'm sure it would be all over HSLDA's website and I'd have alerts from HSLDA in my inbox, but it's not and I don't. David Gutierrez needs to get his facts straight.

[acptulsa]

Populations are so much easier to control when everything is illegal. Forget due process--they can pick up whomever they wish at that point and pretend that is due process. When they finally declare the atmosphere to be state property, we will be slaves.

[Kade]

A liberal response: Move.

It's the State's Right. Have fun. You folks reap what you sow.

[tmosley]

No state has a right to kidnap children, which is what this amounts to. If you refuse to let your children go, they will kidnap the parents as well. Armed kidnapping is often punishable by death, if I remember correctly.

States have (or are supposed to have) the power to rule themselves with minimal interference from the Federal government. I'm not sure if you really understand anything about us, Kade. Either that, or you are just trolling. If you paid attention, you would see that most of us are VERY coherent in their beliefs, namely government should go from the bottom up, not the top down.

[Kade]

No state has a right to kidnap children, which is what this amounts to. If you refuse to let your children go, they will kidnap the parents as well. Armed kidnapping is often punishable by death, if I remember correctly.

States have (or are supposed to have) the power to rule themselves with minimal interference from the Federal government. I'm not sure if you really understand anything about us, Kade. Either that, or you are just trolling. If you paid attention, you would see that most of us are VERY coherent in their beliefs, namely government should go from the bottom up, not the top down.

Where in the Constitution does it say the State can't kidnap children?

I love watching you textualist get plastered to a wall. And of course, the TROLL claim again...

No, I understand you. You attack a person who legitimately defends liberty because you can't handle half the truths. You stink of rotten Social Conservatism and you can't shed it.

I've shed my financial socialism a long time ago. You folks continue to bleed out the ass, stupid asinine interpretations of people's rights and liberties based on a document.

Rights extend FAR beyond any piece of paper says it does. Deliver.

[drew1503]

The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness I think applies as well as any STATE laws that are against kidnapping and torture. Congress is allowed to pass laws as long as they do not subvert the Constitution.

[dannno]

This article originally came from prisonplanet.com and David Gutierrez apparently caught on to the California homeschooling ban too late because he's relying on some very old info for his article. Homeschooling remains legal in CA. Read here for the facts: http://www.hslda.org/docs/media/2008/200808080.asp

If this decision had been overturned, I'm sure it would be all over HSLDA's website and I'd have alerts from HSLDA in my inbox, but it's not and I don't. David Gutierrez needs to get his facts straight.

Uhhh, I'm sorry your HSLDA website is out of date, and no, this article is not from PrisonPlanet.com..


http://www.naturalnews.com/024287.html

[Kade]

The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness I think applies as well as any STATE laws that are against kidnapping and torture. Congress is allowed to pass laws as long as they do not subvert the Constitution.

LOL!

Of course it does!

But that wasn't always the case, and many Originalist try to argue that it doesn't... just spend more time here, and you will find them, some hardcore "Originalists" who don't think that the Bill of Rights applies to the States at all...

[dannno]

So Kade, what's your position on state-sanctioned slavery??

[drew1503]

Kade. the Constitution does not need an amendment stating kidnapping children is illegal, however, i do see your point and that is the issue here.

More time here? I have been a member longer than you. I mostly read and post when the mood hits!

[Kade]

Kade. the Constitution does not need an amendment stating kidnapping children is illegal, however, i do see your point and that is the issue here.

More time here? I have been a member longer than you. I mostly read and post when the mood hits!

That's exciting.

[dannno]

Hurry now.. I've yet to see someone.. anyone..but especially someone coming from the left who agrees that states should be able to sanction slavery and I can't wait... waiting... waiting.. :D

[drew1503]

Actually according to the Constitution slavery is OK if it is for punishment of a crime, most people do not realize that.

13th Amendment

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS).
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

[dannno]

Being a child is not a crime.

[drew1503]

That's exciting.

Not Exciting but fact, you brought it up, not me.

[Kade]

So Kade, what's your position on state-sanctioned slavery??

Individual State's are now bigger than the entire United States were at the time of it's founding. The government, all of it, is vastly too large.

That being said, the concept of state-sanctioned slavery is foreign to me. I don't condone any form of slavery, and with it, justify revolution in order to overthrow any form of tyranny, slavery being one of the paramount concerns.

I think we should place more "laws" on the government, as a people. As in, limit them to a degree in which, if they do not follow our guidelines, buh bye.

This was done in theory before... It can be done again. It will start with states that decide to start questioning the role of the Federal Government on the opposite spectrum of Social Values.

Example, Texas wants to be a Christian State... that doesn't sit well, a big hoopla begins... etc.

Better example: Rhode Island refuses to give over it's taxpayers money unless the Federal Government ends Faith Based Initiatives.

Excellence.

[drew1503]

Kade, we are in agreement.

[tmosley]

Where in the Constitution does it say the State can't kidnap children?

I love watching you textualist get plastered to a wall. And of course, the TROLL claim again...

No, I understand you. You attack a person who legitimately defends liberty because you can't handle half the truths. You stink of rotten Social Conservatism and you can't shed it.

I've shed my financial socialism a long time ago. You folks continue to bleed out the ass, stupid asinine interpretations of people's rights and liberties based on a document.

Rights extend FAR beyond any piece of paper says it does. Deliver.

If the constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the right, then they don't have the right. All rights not mentioned there are reserved to the states, or to the people. Invoking the constitution here is a red herring, as the federal government is not involved.

You keep criticizing us for being inconsistent, but we aren't. We, almost to a person, believe in individual rights first, state rights second, and federal rights last, except where noted otherwise in the constitution (raising armies, coining money, etc). Just because someone is a proponent of states rights doesn't mean that they think states should be able to trample individual freedoms. It just means that they think that the state government should have more power than the federal government. I find it rather difficult to imagine a situation in which that was bad for anyone except the asshats inside the Beltway.

I rarely if ever call you a troll, but I did in this thread because you have, in fact, been trolling (here and in the one where you thought claimed that we thought it was fine to let a restaurant poison it's customers). I'm sorry if you are mad that people here keep putting words in your mouth, but that doesn't give you the privilege to do the same to others without getting called out for it.

[Kade]

If the constitution doesn't give the Federal Government the right, then they don't have the right. All rights not mentioned there are reserved to the states, or to the people. Invoking the constitution here is a red herring, as the federal government is not involved.

You keep criticizing us for being inconsistent, but we aren't. We, almost to a person, believe in individual rights first, state rights second, and federal rights last, except where noted otherwise in the constitution (raising armies, coining money, etc). Just because someone is a proponent of states rights doesn't mean that they think states should be able to trample individual freedoms. It just means that they think that the state government should have more power than the federal government. I find it rather difficult to imagine a situation in which that was bad for anyone except the asshats inside the Beltway.

I rarely if ever call you a troll, but I did in this thread because you have, in fact, been trolling (here and in the one where you thought claimed that we thought it was fine to let a restaurant poison it's customers). I'm sorry if you are mad that people here keep putting words in your mouth, but that doesn't give you the privilege to do the same to others without getting called out for it.

Alright, let's start over. Where in the Constitution does it say a STATE cannot criminalize homeschooling?

Obviously, you can see my train of thought here... I didn't put this limit on the state by the FEDERAL government...

[TC95]

Uhhh, I'm sorry your HSLDA website is out of date, and no, this article is not from PrisonPlanet.com..


http://www.naturalnews.com/024287.html

I stand corrected. It did not originate on prisonplanet.com, but it is on prisonplanet.com, too. It doesn't matter, though. It's still outdated. Homeschooling IS legal in CA and parents don't have to be certified. Go ask HSLDA yourself. I think they know more about it than you or Gutierrez. No need to get people all freaked out again over nothing.

[dannno]

I stand corrected. It did not originate on prisonplanet.com, but it is on prisonplanet.com, too. It doesn't matter, though. It's still outdated. Homeschooling IS legal in CA and parents don't have to be certified. Go ask HSLDA yourself. I think they know more about it than you or Gutierrez. No need to get people all freaked out again over nothing.

So did they make up the quotes too??


"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said.


"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation," Croskey wrote.


"At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " homeschool parent Loren Mavromati said. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."




Gee, that lady is getting all worked up over nothing??


This article came out yesterday, Sept. 23.. the webpage you are linking to shows an article from August. I'm pretty sure they haven't updated their website yet.

[TC95]

So did they make up the quotes too??


"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children," Justice H. Walter Croskey said.


"A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation," Croskey wrote.


"At first, there was a sense of, 'No way,' " homeschool parent Loren Mavromati said. "Then there was a little bit of fear. I think it has moved now into indignation."




Gee, that lady is getting all worked up over nothing??


This article came out yesterday, Sept. 23.. the webpage you are linking to shows an article from August. I'm pretty sure they haven't updated their website yet.

Just because Gutierrez' article is dated after HSLDA's, doesn't mean his is more accurate. Apparently, he found out about the California homeschooling stuff just a little too late, AFTER the decision was already overturned.

Here is an article with those exact same quotes dated March 7, 2008.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2008/03/07/MNJDVF0F1.DTL

[RJB]

In a way I agree with Kade. It is a state's right to interpret their constitution and laws. Too many times we rely on the supreme court and the fed gov to settle local issues. This makes us lazy when it comes to local politics. I say, CA residents fight this or move out, preferable to New Hampshire.

This would settle so much crap in our country. You should be allowed to smoke pot and ban homeschooling in CA, unless the people fight (legislatively speaking) to change it. In Missouri people should be allowed to ban pot and allow homeschooling unless the people fight. Freedom is never free.

The people shhould change things grassroots up, not supreme court down.




I've shed my financial socialism a long time ago. You folks continue to bleed out the ass, stupid asinine interpretations of people's rights and liberties based on a document.
. Now Kade, there might have been a nicer way of putting that:)

[withallmyheart]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homeschool9-2008aug09,0,858947.story

http://californiahomeschool.net/howTo/updates.htm

[Theocrat]

A liberal response: Move.

It's the State's Right. Have fun. You folks reap what you sow.

You are forgetting the most important facet of this issue: legitimacy. The State may have rights (given to it by the People, I might add), but it has no legitmacy to control a child's education. That is not the State's role. Parents have the primary duty and responsibility to train their children, according to the freedom, wisdom, and dictates of their consciences, abilities, and needs.

In a sense, though, I suppose you're right that parents could choose to move away from California if they don't agree with the Court's ruling over homeschooling. However, when has running away from a problem solved anything? I think the parents in California need to rise up in an uproar about this blatant attack on one of the most basic rights God has given to parents, and that is the obligation of teaching their own children.

Isn't it amazing how parents don't need credentials from the State to have children, but now they need to have certification in order to teach them? Ah, the hypocrisy of liberalism.

[Kade]

You are forgetting the most important facet of this issue: legitimacy. The State may have rights (given to it by the People, I might add), but it has no legitmacy to control a child's education. That is not the State's role. Parents have the primary duty and responsibility to train their children, according to the freedom, wisdom, and dictates of their consciences, abilities, and needs.

In a sense, though, I suppose you're right that parents could choose to move away from California if they don't agree with the Court's ruling over homeschooling. However, when has running away from a problem solved anything? I think the parents in California need to rise up in an uproar about this blatant attack on one of the most basic rights God has given to parents, and that is the obligation of teaching their children.

Isn't it amazing how parents don't need credentials from the State to have children, but now they need to have certification in order to teach them? Ah, the hypocrisy of liberalism.

In theory I agree with you. In practice, you have stepped on your own foot.

The government also does not have a right to shove your religion down people's throat, nor does it have a right to establish a Theocracy in any state...yet you have argued that it does, previously. Welcome to the group of people who have just been shown the hypocrisy train, make sure you hand the Conductor your ticket, remain seated at all times while train is in motion.

[Theocrat]

In theory I agree with you. In practice, you have stepped on your own foot.

The government also does not have a right to shove your religion down people's throat, nor does it have a right to establish a Theocracy in any state...yet you have argued that it does, previously. Welcome to the group of people who have just been shown the hypocrisy train, make sure you hand the Conductor your ticket, remain seated at all times while train is in motion.(Emphasis mine)

I agree. The civil government should not shove religion down anyone's throat, whether it's theistic or "atheistic." Remember, there is no neutrality. Having said that, in these United States, it is self-evident that our rights originate from God, and therefore, He sets the standards for how governments ought to act towards the people they serve in preserving and protecting those rights. Thus, all States are inherently theocratic by nature.

You can keep your ticket, but don't miss your train. Be sure the Conductor sees the stamp I placed on you because you've just been owned.

[tmosley]

(Emphasis mine)

I agree. The civil government should not shove religion down anyone's throat, whether it's theistic or "atheistic." Remember, there is no neutrality. Having said that, in these United States, it is self-evident that our rights originate from God, and therefore, He sets the standards for how governments ought to act towards the people they serve in preserving and protecting those rights. Thus, all States are inherently theocratic by nature.

You can keep your ticket, but don't miss your train. Be sure the Conductor sees the stamp I placed on you because you've just been owned.

In other words, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."

Just because you say something is self evident doesn't make it so. If you want to prove that our rights originate from God, you damn well better be able to PROVE that God exists. If you can't, your whole argument falls apart, and suddenly no-one has any rights.

In reality, it is far simpler to say that rights spring from a persons ability to defend his or her interests with deadly force. One could go further to say that God created those interests, or the people, or the ability to employ force, but that is beside the point. The fact is that the people are there, they have interests, and they are willing to both kill and die to defend them. God doesn't enter into the equation, even if he does exist.

[The_Orlonater]

Individual State's are now bigger than the entire United States were at the time of it's founding. The government, all of it, is vastly too large.

That being said, the concept of state-sanctioned slavery is foreign to me. I don't condone any form of slavery, and with it, justify revolution in order to overthrow any form of tyranny, slavery being one of the paramount concerns.

I think we should place more "laws" on the government, as a people. As in, limit them to a degree in which, if they do not follow our guidelines, buh bye.

This was done in theory before... It can be done again. It will start with states that decide to start questioning the role of the Federal Government on the opposite spectrum of Social Values.

Example, Texas wants to be a Christian State... that doesn't sit well, a big hoopla begins... etc.

Better example: Rhode Island refuses to give over it's taxpayers money unless the Federal Government ends Faith Based Initiatives.

Excellence.

I'm in agreement here.