Why the California Court Got it Right on Homeschooling
WARNING: THIS POST IS RATED NC-17 FOR GRAPHIC CONTENT
(Those bar graphs sure copulate like monkeys)
I know everyone's probably decrying the recent California decision on homeschooling. (I know I was when it first came out.) However, as FU's resident legal scholar, I believe it is my duty to show you that there are two sides to every issue.
After mentating deeply about the case while on the pot this morning (hit tip: bathroom coorrespondent), I have come to the conclusion that the California decision banning homeschooling is actually a very CONSERVATIVE decision. Don't believe me? Well, just think about it. The California court was refusing to recognize an unenumerated constitutional right. Good for them! That's very conservative. It's the essence of judicial activism to recognize unenumerated constitutional rights.
Now, the Constitution recognizes very few "fundamental" (i.e. unenumerated) rights. A fundamental right is a very special right that, although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution's text, is so important that, without recognizing it, ordered liberty could not exist. For example, while we may all be at liberty to eat cheeseburgers, we would not say that the right to eat cheeseburgers is so fundamental that, without protecting it, ordered liberty could not exist. Similarly, the right to draw yellow Martians, though important, is not a constitutional right.
Again, an unenumerated right (i.e. one not found explicitly in the Constitution's text) has to be really really special in order for a court to recognize it as a constitutional right. Take for instance the right to contraception on demand. Surely that doesn't rise to the level of . . . (oh, really?) bad example. Let's think instead about the unconstrained right of a mother (or doctor with the mother's "consent") to kill a fetus in utero. Now that's a right . . . (wait, that too?). O.K., so maybe abortion is in, but surely sodomy doesn't . . . (IT DOES??). All right, now I know the right to possess pornography and sex toys . . . (I can't believe it! INCREDIBLE!).
Well, it turns out that there are very few unenumerated constitutional rights EXCEPT when we're talking about sex, and then anything goes, baby! Say, that gives me an idea. I think I've thought of a way that, even under the recent holding of the California appellate court, home schooling could still be a constitutionally protected right!! The following is a home schooling curriculum that I'm sure the California courts would recognize as constitutionally protected:
HISTORY: Margaret Sanger, Heroine of a Millenium
MATH: Contraception, the Null Set (set theory)
LITERATURE: (Take your pick of graphic novels here)
PHYS ED: Sodomy-ball
PERFORMING ARTS: Rating the 10 greatest pornographic films of all time
See!! Isn't living in a democracy great?
I had the same conclusion when I read the article too, even though it made me furious. To me they just gave the most fantasic argument for the people of california to repeal their own law. It is amazing how willingly people gave up their rights following FDR's new deal. Unfortunately I don't see how the people of California will overcome their good-naturedness and not require that the govt babysit the entire education process.
ReplyDeleteWell, normally I'd agree with RamboCatholic except that in this case I believe the right of parents to educate their children is just as fundamental as the unenumerated right to raise them in lieu of forcibly handing them over to the state for their unbringing. To repeat what I wrote in one email on the subject, "if the California law is really as restrictive as they claim, then it really needs to be changed to allow parents to exercise this fundamental right." Fortunately Gov. Schwarzenegger supports legislation to change the law to protect this right of parents; let's hope that gets taken care of quickly.
ReplyDeleteDave is right. The right of parents to raise and educate their children is fundamental and prior to the Constitution. It is not within the competence of any earthly government to grant this or other certain basic rights, such as the rights to life, liberty, property, etc. They are granted to human beings by their Creator and are inalienable rights, as the Declaration of Independence recognizes. The Constitution, like any other human government, must recognize and protect these rights, or the government based upon it is not legitimate.
ReplyDeleteAtheistic governments recognize no authority higher than the State, so they believe rights only exist if they are granted by the State. The Left in the United States, including judges like Judge H. Walt Croskey, who wrote the opinion outlawing homeschooling, seem to have the same flawed concept of government and are trying to impose it on the rest of us.