Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34

Thread: Court rules that the state owns your children

  1. #1
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690

    Court rules that the state owns your children

    http://restoreoklahomapubliceducatio...ective-or.html
    http://www.aim.org/wls/parents-relin...are-in-school/

    “[P]arents give up their rights when they drop children off at public School.”


    How do you feel, as a parent - or even a grandparent - about this statement? It was actually uttered by U.S. Federal Judge Melinda Harmon

    "In a court ruling concerning parents who sued a school district when their son was forced, by a female Texas Children's Protective Services worker, to strip naked and answer questions designed to determine if the boy's parents had paddled him."

    Just recently, America's own Attorney General, Eric Holder, has said parents have no fundamental right to school their children at home.
    How can parents be forced to give up rights at all? If the government is claiming that you don't have a right to home school your children and that you have to give up your parental rights over your children to drop them off at a government school, then the state is claiming that it owns your children.

    This is way screwed up in my book and it's creating that group that uses 'feelings' to take away our rights to defend ourselves.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Cite the ruling please.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150

    The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America continues

    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Cite the ruling please.
    Which one? I am not making the claim just citing an article.

    Besides you have a few claims you've not been able to cite either....

    I did however trying to find the "Melinda Harmon" quote and I am not seeing it in Lexis Nexis.

    I can't find a Plaintive v School district with that quote either. The only bits I can find claim she made that statement in a 1996 ruling of some sort. I am still looking.
    --edit

    It looks to be quoted from a book and I would have to see the book to confirm the citation used.

    http://www.behindthebadge.net/books/zb101.html
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 12-14-2013 at 09:20 PM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The thread title makes an assertion. Intellectual honesty demands you back it up.

    Cite the case please.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The thread title makes an assertion. Intellectual honesty demands you back it up.

    Cite the case please.
    I used the title that I drew a logical conclusion from. I should have phrased it, "Government claims to own your children"

    However here is a case from California.

    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2008/M...omeschooling-/

    The state claims that you cannot teach your children at home and then if you have to give up parental rights to send your child to a public school then that is effectively the courts saying that the state owns your children.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  7. #7
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The thread title makes an assertion. Intellectual honesty demands you back it up.

    Cite the case please.
    I'm not going to take the time to look for the cite, but the Kalifornia supreme court (I think) said parents lease their children from the state.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  8. #8
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The thread title makes an assertion. Intellectual honesty demands you back it up.

    Cite the case please.
    It's an opinion based on information already present. Take it or leave it...

    Being homeschooled I am at least remotely aware of the attacks on homeschooling as a right and option. I consider myself very blessed to have been raised in a state that, at least legislatively and generally and comparatively, with obvious exemptions, doesn't infringe on parent's rights to educate their children privately and as they see fit, and I consider myself blessed that my parents decided to do so.
    Advocate freedom please

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    It's an opinion based on information already present. Take it or leave it...

    ...
    The thread title is not presented as an opinion. It is stated as though it is a fact that a court has so ruled.

    So, again, what court? What case? Cite please.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    If the OP is correct then I must be the property of the gov't AND I paid for myself ... so I am my own master and slave with a gov't overseer ...


    well, i want my money back

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    If the OP is correct then I must be the property of the gov't AND I paid for myself ... so I am my own master and slave with a gov't overseer ...


    well, i want my money back
    Are you but a child?

    The government does own you too, slave. That was a whole other thread though. You didn't pay for anything, you were allowed to keep a percentage of what you earned is all.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  12. #12
    Regular Member EMNofSeattle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    S. Kitsap, Washington state
    Posts
    3,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    I used the title that I drew a logical conclusion from. I should have phrased it, "Government claims to own your children"

    However here is a case from California.

    http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2008/M...omeschooling-/

    The state claims that you cannot teach your children at home and then if you have to give up parental rights to send your child to a public school then that is effectively the courts saying that the state owns your children.
    That ruling lasted less then a year, and was unanimously reversed when reviewed en banc by the entire court of appeals
    they love our milk and honey, but they preach about some other way of living, when they're running down my country man they're walkin' on the fightin side of me

    NRA Member

  13. #13
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Sounds like another thread intended to ferment some anti .gov speak. But again it seems to lack the promised tyranny and oppression that the thread title claims.....

    We should start a fund for a charity. Every time someone starts a bogus thread on a false premise and it gets refuted by facts they should pay a dollar through pay pal to a charity of their choosing.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle View Post
    That ruling lasted less then a year, and was unanimously reversed when reviewed en banc by the entire court of appeals
    Thank you.

  15. #15
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The thread title is not presented as an opinion. It is stated as though it is a fact that a court has so ruled.

    So, again, what court? What case? Cite please.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    It is obviously an opinion despite not* being declared as such. <- This is my opinion, obviously, even before declaring it such in this following sentence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Sounds like another thread intended to ferment some anti .gov speak. But again it seems to lack the promised tyranny and oppression that the thread title claims.....

    We should start a fund for a charity. Every time someone starts a bogus thread on a false premise and it gets refuted by facts they should pay a dollar through pay pal to a charity of their choosing.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Leave it to the resident statist to suggest imposing a fine for voicing one's opinion just because he doesn't like or agree with it. Do you not see the irony here? Holy ****.
    Last edited by stealthyeliminator; 12-15-2013 at 11:04 AM.
    Advocate freedom please

  16. #16
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    It is obviously an opinion despite not* being declared as such. <- This is my opinion, obviously, even before declaring it such in this following sentence.



    Leave it to the resident statist to suggest imposing a fine for voicing one's opinion just because he doesn't like or agree with it. Do you not see the irony here? Holy ****.
    Cmon stealthy.... you know he wasn't putting it out as "opinion" he even cited sources to "prove" it was true. He was then called out by others (not me) that it was false. You can't post a clear title thread that states something as fact, attempt to back it up with cites, get called out, THEN say Jk it was an opinion and since its an opinion i can't be proven wrong.....

    Sure call it a "fine". Sounded more to me like holding guys responsible for their actions. I didn't say the government needs to come on here and do that (cmon really?). I said we should do it. Oh and it was a joke.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  17. #17
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Cmon stealthy.... you know he wasn't putting it out as "opinion" he even cited sources to "prove" it was true. He was then called out by others (not me) that it was false. You can't post a clear title thread that states something as fact, attempt to back it up with cites, get called out, THEN say Jk it was an opinion and since its an opinion i can't be proven wrong.....

    Sure call it a "fine". Sounded more to me like holding guys responsible for their actions. I didn't say the government needs to come on here and do that (cmon really?). I said we should do it. Oh and it was a joke.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    It doesn't matter who does it or what they call themselves if the action is the same. I know it was just an "idea" and there is no feasible way to "force" another member to pay, but I still think it's pretty ironic that you had such an idea.
    Advocate freedom please

  18. #18
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    It doesn't matter who does it or what they call themselves if the action is the same. I know it was just an "idea" and there is no feasible way to "force" another member to pay, but I still think it's pretty ironic that you had such an idea.
    Thank you for at least realizing I was joking. You irony I just saw it as being a funny idea with good intentions. No more no less

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    It is obviously an opinion despite not* being declared as such...
    It is obviously NOT an opinion. It is very clearly stated as a fact that has been taken from one of the linked sources, without being checked out as being either true or false.

    Moving on.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I suspect this is less a discussion of whether a court actually said, "government owns your children", than whether this is an example of government is headed more and more solidly in the direction of "owning" us.

    For example, an erudite and perspicacious (look them up ) commentator pointed out that a ruling within the last few years by a state appellate court essentially amounted to the idea that the state owns the people residing within its jurisdiction. I can't recall the state. The fundamental government ruling was that there was no right to resist a police illegal entry into a home.

    Near its core, our right to forcibly resist illegal police entry is based on the idea that a police officer unlawfully entering a home is no different than any other house-breaker. Its the mantle of legitimate legal authority that distinguishes him and his housebreaking from a common criminal. The only way government can fly the idea that there is no right to resist an unlawful police entry is to also say that a person is always subject to government even when it does not have genuine authority. This is ownership. It says you are subject to government even when government does not have legitimate legal authority. The only way it can fly that is to claim that it owns you. And, yours.

    At its core, our right to forcibly resist illegal police entry is based on equality. The concept that legitimizes your right to resist a housebreaker is that he is an equal and is busting into your home without your consent. The only way a cop can do it without your equal consent is legitimate legal authority.

    The government's explanations, and those of its supporters, are all just exercises in persuasion using specious arguments. The final proof that government does not own you and knows it, is that it feels compelled to explain why it does (legal rationale/theory in court opinions). It only has to explain to equals. If it genuinely owned you, no explanation would be necessary.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-15-2013 at 04:39 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member DrakeZ07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lexington, Ky
    Posts
    1,107
    The state owns kids now? Cool.

    I hate kids anyway. They aggravate me in public places, and when I'm shopping, and stuff.

    Best part about being gay... NO BABIES! whoo! !

    The state can have all the kids it wants, as long as I don't have to watch them have temper tantrums in my favorite grocery stores anymore.
    I'm a proud openly gay open carrier~
    Trained SKYWARN spotter, and veteran Storm Chaser.
    =^.^= ~<3~ =^.^=
    Beware the Pink Camo clad gay redneck.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by DrakeZ07 View Post
    The state owns kids now? Cool.

    I hate kids anyway. They aggravate me in public places, and when I'm shopping, and stuff.

    Best part about being gay... NO BABIES! whoo! !

    The state can have all the kids it wants, as long as I don't have to watch them have temper tantrums in my favorite grocery stores anymore.
    I don't like goats in my favorite grocery stores either.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  23. #23
    Regular Member Brace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    209
    What if the state (or its executors) determine a vested interest in deterring homosexual behavior and practices, as is already the case in some places? It's darkly amusing that the gay rights brigade seems silent or indifferent to the existence of literal prison camps filled with their kind. I mean, who gives a **** about innocent kids being taken away in the night to be reeducated with extreme prejudice and taught that they can either be moral and rational or whole people, but not both. Gotta go after that gay marriage. Bennies! If Dante was right then may every silicon valley libertine face in hell the sufferings of those they abandoned in life.

  24. #24
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Brace View Post
    What if the state (or its executors) determine a vested interest in deterring homosexual behavior and practices, as is already the case in some places? It's darkly amusing that the gay rights brigade seems silent or indifferent to the existence of literal prison camps filled with their kind. I mean, who gives a **** about innocent kids being taken away in the night to be reeducated with extreme prejudice and taught that they can either be moral and rational or whole people, but not both. Gotta go after that gay marriage. Bennies! If Dante was right then may every silicon valley libertine face in hell the sufferings of those they abandoned in life.
    Wow, I had entirely missed the homosexuality aspect of this thread... Oh wait, no I didn't, there is none.

    Not every thread that you and that other guy (Drake is it?) post in can be about homosexuality.
    Advocate freedom please

  25. #25
    Regular Member Brace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    209
    It was a response to Drake saying it didn't effect him. Yes it is relevant. I have scars to attest to its relevance, you don't get to tell me that this sort of statism has no relevance to people like me.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •