September 22, 2005
Scott Defisks HoNDA Sect. 2(7)
(7) The United States Constitution does not allow Federal control of homeschooling.
Chris says, “So we are going to create new laws that use the police power of the federal government to dictate to the states exactly how the federal government is not going to control home education. Yeah, that'll help.” About that “police power,” Chris…
You have been using the term to generally refer to the coercive nature of government action. I agree with your basic point, and may elaborate on it somewhere else. Government has a monopoly on the use of force in our society, which it uses to take, confine, or destroy. Any other acts of government (such as “spending for the general welfare”) would not be possible if it weren’t for the stuff taken, the people confined, or the aforementioned destruction.
I would not use the term “police power” to describe this fact about government. “Police power” has a specific legal meaning. Here is FindLaw’s summary. Other sites (with more of a political agenda) provide more details: this site has a lot of links to the specifics.
If we use the term “police power” in this more specific sense, it’s factually incorrect to claim that HoNDA would “use the police power of the federal government” to do anything. Would you be willing to substitute “coercive power of the federal government” for “police power”?
PermalinkComments
The 10th Amendment is such that Education is a Power left up to each state. The federal Government does not have any power with regard to Education at all - let alone homeschooling. The only way the federal government gets it's hands into education is via the Commerce Clause and using Bribary like tactics (the power of the purse) to get states to enact laws like NCLB. Since homeschoolers do not accept federal funding the Federal government has absolutely no power to regulate them. HSLDA would like to see that changed with HONDA.. they wish to see federal funding via scholarships and other tax breaks to be given to homeschoolers so that we can be regulated and brought into the same tangled of federal handouts that public education is stuck in. That is HSLDA's agenda, because it means they can fight their battles in federal courts where they stand to make more money, and it also means that they can have a say in setting federal statutes regarding home education. HSLDA has already been responsible for the passage of at least 12 federal statutes that use the term "homeschooling" which is a detriment to the homeschool community in the long run, not to mention wholly unconstitutional. Mr. Farris needs to study his own constitutional law class, as he clearly does not understand the 10th amendment, or each individual state's right to decide how to handle educational issues. To enact federal legislation regarding homeschooling undermines state's rights. It also will undo the freedoms in states that have little to no statute regarding homeschooling - where homeschoolers are free to educate as they please. HONDA will enslave homeschoolers to the government in the name of trying to "protect us".. hmmm... where have I heard that promise before?
Posted by: Judy Aron at September 22, 2005 01:01 PMJudy, you know that I respect your passion but I have to disagree with you here.
You say, "HSLDA has already been responsible for the passage of at least 12 federal statutes that use the term 'homeschooling.'" This is probably a fruitful thread in its own right. If you don't mind, I'm going to break that issue out of this line of discussion. (If you do mind, that's okay, too, but I'll post my responses to your comments here on the other thread.)
As for your suggestion that Mr. Farris study his own constitutional law class, I would remind you that HSLDA's primary mission is to FIGHT state laws that restrict a parent's right to direct the education of their own child. Connecticut has a great law and some wonderful pro-family language in its Constitution, but other homeschoolers used to get hammered in their state courts on a regular basis.
I recognize your concern that folks in Connecticut might suffer if federal law changed the good situation you have under state law. I've talked with Deborah Stevenson about this concern, and I'm still trying to understand exactly how she thinks HoNDA would change the status quo in your state. I'm not going to start a whole thread on Connecticut issues here, but I'd be happy to take it up on a CT homeschool blog if somebody wants me to.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 22, 2005 01:26 PMScott - This is not just about CT - and I have heard this same response on the NHEN boards..
as for HSLDA fighting for parent's rights in other states - all I have seen you folks do is compromise, so that parents have lost rights..and you guys almost did that to us 15 years ago here in CT. I can start a whole thread about that.. would you care for me to cite cases where you have done more harm than good?
Yes, Judy, I'd be interested in having you remind me of those cases.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 22, 2005 03:08 PMScott where would you like to start?
Illinois? New Hampshire? Michigan? New York ? South Carolina? Texas ? Virginia?
HSLDA's intrusion has done damage in lots of places.. sometimes in the name of "protection"
Let's take New Hampshire?
In 1991 PURE lobbied for a Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) modeled after Kentucky's constitutional article ("No man shall be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed") which would have explicitly guaranteed a parent's right to control the education of their children. However, in 1991 when HSLDA's opinion really mattered, HSLDA actively opposed the Parental Rights Amendment.
Sheeesh Scott I could start a whole website/blog on this - actually the website that contained all the instances was effectively shut down by your organization.. but the truth is still out there.
Posted by: Judy Aron at September 22, 2005 04:22 PMJudy, New Hampshire is near and dear to my heart. I spent seven months sitting on the NH Dept. of Ed. Home School Rules Revision Subcommittee in 1988, where Elaine Rapp and I managed to keep the Department of Education from adopting new rules that would have tripled the burden on NH homeschoolers. I left and went to Harvard, but our arch-opponent took the original bad regulatory proposal to the NH Legislature to try to get it enacted into law. In 1991, the NH Legislature gutted that evil bill and substituted in the law NH now operates under.
I wasn't in NH for the legislative fight, since I was off at law school, so I can't speak from personal knowledge about what happened in 1991. When I got to HSLDA in 1992, I promptly contacted Doris Hohensee (of PURE) and began discussions about how HSLDA could get behind her effort. It took a few years, but HSLDA did come out in favor of her PRA. Even with our help, however, we were not able to get it enacted.
That's New Hampshire, for what it's worth. I'm happy to discuss any of the other states you mention, although I'm not at all familiar with what happened in South Carolina.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at September 23, 2005 01:31 PMHello, Judy?
It's been ten days... I was serious about going through those other cases of "HSLDA intrusion." I've been involved in each of the cases you mention (except for SC), and my take on each case was that passionate and diverse homeschoolers had a difference of opinion on a legislative issue.
According to James Madison, differences of opinion happen in a healthy republic. I think that homeschool diversity is a great part of the reason for homeschool success. I also think that HSLDA has a good track record of supporting sensible legislation and getting positive results. I'm eager to discuss those other states, any time you're ready.
Posted by: Scott W. Somerville at October 3, 2005 12:14 PMIf the comment entry box is gone it's because comments are closed for this entry. Please feel free to use the "contact" link above to get in touch.