Phillies on California homeschooling ruling

From the Phillies 2008 campaign:

Physics professor and Libertarian Presidential candidate George Phillies condemned the recent California Court of Appeals ruling that parents have no legal right to homeschool their children. “California should fix its laws,” said Phillies.

“The Court says it is bound by California statute, which requires children to go to school or be tutored by someone with an appropriate state credential. In a 1953 decision, the California Court system had already rejected claims of parents that they were constitutionally entitled to home school their children.

“In 1953, segregation was Constitutional, Brown v Board of Education not yet having come down. The Supreme Court overturned reactionary segregation laws, and California Courts should overturn their equally reactionary position on home schooling, a reactionary position already rejected by most other states across America. The supposedly progressive state of California is rejecting a very fundamental right of parenthood—the right to pass on your beliefs and your knowledge to your own children. California’s courts should try joining America in the twenty-first century, where home schooling is central to the education of millions of Americans.

Phillies applauded Governor Schwarzenegger’s pledge to protect California children’s right to be home schooled. “Such a pledge shows admirable courage. Now the California legislature should show they are as just as brave.”

13 Responses to “Phillies on California homeschooling ruling”

  1. Hugh Jass Says:

    Wow. This the the second time Phillies got one right (the first one being terrorrism).

  2. SovereignMN Says:

    Does Phillies believe that the responsibility to fix this lies with the California courts of the California legislature?

  3. G.E. Says:

    Phillies is right about a lot of stuff. So is W.A.R., or for that matter, Dennis Kucinich.

  4. richard Says:

    Arnold, incidentally, got this one right too.
    The case is being appealed, as far as I understand.

    A local firm published THIS little piece.

  5. disinter Says:

    Now if Phillies would not support government forced “equality”, he might be the candidate to support.

  6. George Phillies Says:

    In answer:

    SovereignMN: I’d like it fixed, but don’t care nearly so much who gets credit for bringing California into the 21st century.

    disinter: My issue is that so long as state governments insist on licensing marriages, they should treat everyone the same way. That’s not forcing equality on anyone, that’s accepting that all marriages are allowed to be equal if the participants so desire. However, simply repealing government licensing of marriage leaves you with some tens of thousands of laws that refer to marriage. Ending government-licensing of marriages status without at the same fixing those laws would for example disrupt property rights.

    There would be many advantages of separating the civil issue entirely from the religious issue. For example, there are many elderly people who have good friends that they would like to control their medical decisions, if they themselves are disabled and unable to do so, and a civil commitment as binding as marriage would be a path to protecting these people.

  7. Michael H. Wilson Says:

    The Supreme Court said about 1928, in a case arising from Oregon, that the freedom to speak includes the freedom to teach. Maybe the lower courts should read the Supremes. Maybe the LPHQ will put out a media release. Then maybe not.

    MHW

  8. richard Says:

    Michael, can you get a link to that case?

  9. richard Says:

    By the way, I like how every time Phillies is mentioned his credential as a physics professor is interjected. It’s as if being a physicist somehow endows one with a supernal wisdom on all things.
    I’m not saying it doesn’t. I’m just saying, it’s funny.
    What’s his research area?

  10. SovereignMN Says:

    For starters let me just say that this is a stupid and unjust law. Now, I don’t believe it is the role of the Court to overturn this law. Courts need to have no bias and strictly rule based on the laws on the books. If the Court were to say “Yes this law is on the books but it’s really stupid, outdated and should be struck down. Therefore home schooling is allowed in California.” Then it would be judicial activism in reverse. The ends don’t justify the means.

    What needs to happen is:
    1. The Californis legislature needs to overturn this law.
    2. Gov Schwarzenegger and the CA Attorney General should not enforce this law.
    3. Parents who wish to homeschool should practice civil disobedience.

  11. disinter Says:

    I would rather have a physics professor than a brain-dead moron (Dubya).

  12. G.E. Says:

    As long as the state insists on providing free medical care to poor people, shouldn’t free medical care be provided to middle class and rich people, too? In the name of equality?

    As long as the state says you can’t fire someone based on race or gender, shouldn’t those same protections be extended to gays, or for that matter, for any people and for any reason?

    As long as the state provides corporate welfare to some corporations, shouldn’t it provide it to all corporations?

    As long as the federal government is bailing out subprime mortgage holders, why not bail out all mortgage holders? After all, it’s only right that all things be equal, right?

    So long as we’re engaged in nation-building in Iraq, why not extend the privilege to all nations?

  13. Michael Seebeck Says:

    It’s my understanding that A) LPC is working on a release on this one, if it’s not out already, B) the ruling (which George ought to read if he hasn’t already) is on appeal and is likely to be thrown out for a bunch of reasons from constitutionality and federal precedent as well as the blatantly biased judge far overstepping his legal bounds, and C) The ruling as it now stands only applies to one district for west LA, Ventura, and Santa Barbara , and not the entire state.

Leave a Reply