• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Court rules that the state owns your children

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
http://restoreoklahomapubliceducation.blogspot.com/2013/12/parental-rights-vs-collective-or.html
http://www.aim.org/wls/parents-relinguish-their-rights-when-their-kids-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.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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:

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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/March/CA-Court-Rules-No-Homeschooling-/

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.
 

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
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.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
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/March/CA-Court-Rules-No-Homeschooling-/

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
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.

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:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
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.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
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
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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:

DrakeZ07

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
1,080
Location
Lexington, Ky
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! :D!

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.
 
Top