It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposed Minnesota state constitutional amendment would abridge parental freedom

page: 3
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: PrairieShepherd


No, nor is that what I'm saying.


Then your question is irrelevant and a red herring. The state requiring itself to provide quality schools that provide a quality education is not an implication that private education is inadequate. You’re adding 2+2 and coming up with 11, and that must be some common core math I’m not familiar with.



I'm not sure how I can state it any clearer.


You’re being plenty clear. My problem with your argument is that it rests entirely on a slippery slope, and I don’t accept that as sound reasoning. Your argument is that if the state changes constitutional language to such language that puts a requirement on the state to provide something, the state can then turn around and claim that not using that “thing” it’s required to provide is somehow a violation of its requirement to provide it. Again, going back to the roads, this is no different than arguing that a state requiring itself to maintain public roads is somehow violated whenever a person chooses to not use said roads. There is no requirement for parents to use public education even implied, much less stated, and I would not expect any legal case along those lines to hold up in court any longer than it takes a judge to read the brief.




posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage
Sounds like MN might just be laying out an open door towards planning their own version of the ol' "No Child Left Behind"...


What a shame, I don't like this as a proponent of the 'every child should be left behind the cellar door' policy.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Naturally!

The best way to make sure that none are left behind is to hold them all back equally behind cellar doors.


edit on 3/6/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:25 PM
link   

edit on 3/6/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

It should become a Constitutional Amendment.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:29 PM
link   
listen, somehow, someway, as far back as i can remember, i could read and call out bullsh!t.
all thru school, i would tell the teachers 'that is wrong'

except in math and science.
and the bastards are trying to make math fake now somehow, with this commmon core bullsh!t

anyhoo-
a friend pointed out to me, 'that girl was homeschooled, thats why she acts like that...'

this is when i was in college. and you know what, he was right.

so i teach little kids, 'just pass the test, but what they teach you, half of it is fake.'

thats the scam.

its terrible they took away math from them.

but by keeping your kids out of social environments, they are losing out on learning social interaction keys.
i suggest you get them lifting weights by 16, they need to toughen up.
im a former bouncer, im a power lifter, being strong has saved me countless times, but it also saves me countless pointless discussions with people.

but rest assured finally on this-
people in the know, can tell if someone has been home schooled.
is it good? is it bad?
either way, people can sense it.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So true.

I have a brother in MN.

I think the fact that his townhouse lacks a cellar is the primary reason he hasn't spawned any munchkins.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6
The state already requires itself to provide a quality educational system. That is not changing.


Your argument is that if the state changes constitutional language to such language that puts a requirement on the state to provide something, the state can then turn around and claim that not using that “thing” it’s required to provide is somehow a violation of its requirement to provide it.

No, that is not what my argument is. To use your terminology, my argument is that the state can turn around and claim that not using the thing they provide is a violation of an individual's (the child's) constitutional rights, and therefore, not using the thing the state provides should be prohibited.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: PrairieShepherd

The word 'quality' is not in the old wording.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: dantanna
but by keeping your kids out of social environments, they are losing out on learning social interaction keys.
i suggest you get them lifting weights by 16, they need to toughen up.

Well, it's tough to get them lifting weights, between the co-op art, science, Spanish, and band classes with other homeschoolers, not to mention the field trips and karate...

I guess I'm not too concerned with toughening up son #1 who has a black belt in karate, but yeah maybe the other two should start lifting with me a couple times a week, sure.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
I stand corrected. "Thorough and efficient" is what is in the original text.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: PrairieShepherd

The metric for 'quality' in my opinion is more realistic than 'thorough and efficient'.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: PrairieShepherd


The state already requires itself to provide a quality educational system. That is not changing.


Nope, that is absolutely and unequivocally wrong. The state is required to provide adequate education. Your state Supreme Court already stated this. The actual case is Skeen v State. I have zero problem with a state holding itself accountable for providing a good education in its public school system rather than just an education.


No, that is not what my argument is.


It is, actually, because your state’s current education laws defines “school” as public schools, nonpublic schools, church and religious organizations, and homeschooling. So until they change at least one other law to entirely omit everything but public schools, the state has no legal ground whatsoever to claim that not using public schools should be prohibited. And that’s why it’s a slippery slope fallacy. To arrive at the conclusion you propose, a number of other things have to happen before it gets anywhere near the result you’re worried about.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Might need to pull out my ol' copy of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance again.

Been awhile.

"Quality"...



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: redmage

If that motorcycle is a Harley than the word 'quality' should be checked at the door.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I believe one was a BMW.

Gotta love those Bavarians. So meticulous.

edit on 3/6/20 by redmage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: PrairieShepherd


The state already requires itself to provide a quality educational system. That is not changing.


Nope, that is absolutely and unequivocally wrong. The state is required to provide adequate education. Your state Supreme Court already stated this. The actual case is Skeen v State. I have zero problem with a state holding itself accountable for providing a good education in its public school system rather than just an education.

I agree with your last sentence, and I responded to Augustus that I stand corrected - the language is "thorough and efficient", with an emphasis on uniform - that is, the original idea was equal education for all.


It is, actually, because your state’s current education laws defines “school” as public schools, nonpublic schools, church and religious organizations, and homeschooling. So until they change at least one other law to entirely omit everything but public schools, the state has no legal ground whatsoever to claim that not using public schools should be prohibited. And that’s why it’s a slippery slope fallacy. To arrive at the conclusion you propose, a number of other things have to happen before it gets anywhere near the result you’re worried about.

Be that as it may, whether one thing has to happen or many is irrelevant. I still disagree with wording that qualifies the fundamental right as being "public education". I would be fine with this amendment if the fundamental right was simply "education," and the state's role in that was that it provided the quality educational system to afford all children the same opportunity. More specifically, if the amendment text read:

All children have a fundamental right to a quality education that fully prepares them with the skills necessary for participation in the economy, our democracy, and society, as measured against uniform achievement standards set forth by the state. It is a paramount duty of the state to ensure quality public schools that fulfill this fundamental right.

Then I would not have the problem with it that I do.

As a side note, I have to say, Shamrock, I appreciate your civil and thoughtful debate on this.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: PrairieShepherd


and I responded to Augustus that I stand corrected


I saw that after I replied. I don’t check threads for live updates while I’m typing a reply, and since I cited relevant case law I didn’t feel the need to remove the comment, sorry. I recognize that you corrected yourself and was honestly hoping you’d just skip over that part of my comment



Then I would not have the problem with it that I do.


I see your argument but I can’t align myself with it. Neither the proposed language or your version of it create a mandate to use public education. Your version does no more, and admittedly no less, to protect the freedom to choose a private school or home schooling than existing laws already do to protect that freedom of choice.

ETA - as you your last bit, ditto. I don’t think either of us has moved an inch but it’s a nice change from what passes for discourse around here these days, certainly.

edit on 6-3-2020 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

ETA - as you your last bit, ditto. I don’t think either of us has moved an inch but it’s a nice change from what passes for discourse around here these days, certainly.

Well, there. We found what we agree on.



posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Bravo! An excellent discussion, what a great read guys. Thanks to all here.

I'm going to give some stars and a flag.




new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join