Mother goes to jail after son misses too much school - Page 2

JaJae · 10-04-2006, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by lew

If a person kills someone, then uh yeah obviously that person should be tried.

This case is about a woman's child not going to school. If you can't see then difference, then

There are laws saying kids have to be educated in this country. If the kid isn't enrolled to be homeschooled, they have to be in public education. I'm assuming you have a problem with this?

lew · 10-04-2006, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

There are laws saying kids have to be educated in this country. If the kid isn't enrolled to be homeschooled, they have to be in public education. I'm assuming you have a problem with this?

Yes, I have a problem with state forced, state indoctrinated education.

But it's one thing to punish missing forced education with a fine, but it's quite another with jail time. And on top of that - the person skipping school isn't even the one being punished! Fuck that.

JaJae · 10-04-2006, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Yes, I have a problem with state forced, state indoctrinated education.

But it's one thing to punish missing forced education with a fine, but it's quite another with jail time. And on top of that - the person skipping school isn't even the one being punished! Fuck that.

Nobody is forcing you to send your kids to public schools. Just forcing you to educate them.

Kytro · 10-04-2006, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by lew

If a person kills someone, then uh yeah obviously that person should be tried.

This case is about a woman's child not going to school. If you can't see then difference, then

Of course I can see the difference. However the prision time is not because her kid didn't go to school, it's because she disobeyed the courts.

Certainly she is there for a reason I believe to be inappropriate, however if you don't use law to combat law you can go to prison.

She was imprisioned for challanging the authority of the law.

Diamond Cross · 10-04-2006, 11:37 PM

So law should be absolute? No questioning it at all no matter what?

Baloney. Unjust laws should be questioned and thrown out.

This action is a violation of her 5th Ammendment rights

Kytro · 10-04-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So law should be absolute? No questioning it at all no matter what?

Baloney. Unjust laws should be questioned and thrown out.

Law is not absolute, and yes unjust laws should be removed. i'm pointing out that reason she was jalied was not because her kid didn't go to school.

The law isn't absolute, but the legal system protects itself.

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

This action is a violation of her 5th Ammendment rights

How so?

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Nobody is forcing you to send your kids to public schools. Just forcing you to educate them.

You don't even have to educate them well.

motivez · 10-05-2006, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I'm not really 'fine' with it, I'm just curious why you think it's somehow wrong according to the way our system works with states being able to justify things through having a compelling interest, etc..?

Anyone else wanna talk about this?

If compelling interest is a reasonable standard for a great many things for Justices like Scalia, why should this case be any different?

Diamond Cross · 10-05-2006, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Law is not absolute, and yes unjust laws should be removed. i'm pointing out that reason she was jalied was not because her kid didn't go to school.

The law isn't absolute, but the legal system protects itself.

How so?

5th states that no citizen shall be held responsible for another's crime.

Scrum · 10-05-2006, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

5th states that no citizen shall be held responsible for another's crime.

The crime involved isn't the the childs for not going to school, it's the parents for not forcing them there.

Diamond Cross · 10-05-2006, 04:27 PM

Bullshit. That's just scapegoating.

You know people want Parents to become more involved in the children';s lives, but all they really do is take away parent's rights more and more in order to protect the child.

lew · 10-05-2006, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Anyone else wanna talk about this?

If compelling interest is a reasonable standard for a great many things for Justices like Scalia, why should this case be any different?

I don't like everything Scalia says.

motivez · 10-05-2006, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by lew

I don't like everything Scalia says.

Can you talk about why he's wrong though in any of the cases where he uses it? Or why it shouldnt apply here but should to other situations?

lew · 10-05-2006, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Can you talk about why he's wrong though in any of the cases where he uses it? Or why it shouldnt apply here but should to other situations?

Can you give me some examples?

motivez · 10-05-2006, 04:38 PM

I'll post some when I'm home from work

Phantom · 10-05-2006, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Anyone else wanna talk about this?

If compelling interest is a reasonable standard for a great many things for Justices like Scalia, why should this case be any different?

This is a bit difficult to explain, but "compelling government interest" is a sort of key-phrase used in examining the constitutionality of laws and their application.

Compelling government interest is what the government would need to show if it were to implement a law that overcomes the most strict constitutional scrutiny. An example of this would be discrimination based on race, or denial of a fundamental right such as the right to vote. If a state government wants to discriminate in these areas, it must show a compelling government interest, and that the discrimination is limited exclusively to fulfil that compelling government interest.

A public school education is not a fundamental right protected by the constitution, so any denial of that right would not receive strict scrutiny by the Court. Since there is no constitutional right to an education at least in the current state of the law, a state could probably abandon public education altogether and not violate any constitutional principles...

Kytro · 10-05-2006, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

5th states that no citizen shall be held responsible for another's crime.

She broke a law (unjust or otherwise) so it is her crime. I suppose you could challange the law, not sure about the prospect os success though.

Diamond Cross · 10-05-2006, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Nobody is forcing you to send your kids to public schools. Just forcing you to educate them.

California is.

There's legislation that makes homeschooling effectively illegal by requiring parents who want to homeschoo have the same education as a teacher in high school.

Kytro · 10-05-2006, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

California is.

There's legislation that makes homeschooling effectively illegal by requiring parents who want to homeschoo have the same education as a teacher in high school.

So basically they are saying the child has to be educated by a qualified professional.

I am divided on this.

thomez · 10-05-2006, 09:12 PM

why couldn't they claim a religious reason, like the Amish or Indians or something?

I get sick of the law only being applied to certain groups and not others.

shouldn't be a law anyway