Part 1: click here
In a landmark case concerning the reach of public education in America, Supreme Court Justice James McReynolds famously declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
One of the Supreme Court's most important roles in our constitutional system has always been to provide guidance and direction to inferior courts. Moreover, in light of such a clear pronouncement regarding parental rights, it is difficult to imagine how some of our state and circuit courts reach their judgments in this day and age. Anyone who has paid even cursory attention to the goings-on in our court system lately may well be forced to conclude that, contrary to Justice McReynold's sentiment, the child is the mere creature of the State.
About a year and half ago, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that children have an expectation of privacy at home and that parents are not allowed to listen in on their phone conversations. The case involved a 17-year-old who told his 14-year-old girlfriend that he had mugged an old lady on the street and stole her purse. The girl's mother had been listening to the exchange on another phone line and promptly alerted the authorities to the crime.
A perfectly legitimate exercise of parental vigilance, right?
“Wrong!” Said the Washington State Supreme Court. The boy's conviction was struck down because, as any good liberal activist judge knows, “the right to privacy holds fast even when the individuals are teenagers.” And parents are not allowed to act as agents on behalf of law enforcement. Of course, the ACLU was delighted with the decision. ACLU attorney Douglas Klunder filed a friend-of-the-court brief saying, “I don't think the State should be in the position of encouraging parents to act surreptitiously and eavesdrop on their children.”
One wonders what he would have said had the mother reported a murder or rape to the police as a result of the eavesdropping.
But nevermind, the Washington State Supreme Court does not think parents have the right to monitor who their kids are communicating with—let alone the right to report knowledge of criminal activity to the cops should it be learned through such monitoring.
To discover more rights parents do not have, one need only examine the rulings of the 9th Curcuit Court of Appeals. Late last year, the Palmdale, California school district thought it would be a good idea to distribute questionnaires to 7-10 year-olds asking them about one of liberalism's favorite subjects – sex. The survey probed the kids about such scientific and relevant matters as “touching my private parts too much,” “thinking about other people's private parts,” “getting scared or upset when I think about sex,” etc.
When the parents of these children filed a lawsuit demanding the right to opt their kids out of such surveys, the 9th Curcuit Court of Appeals responded with an emphatic “No.” Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Justice Stephen Reinhardt declared that “there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children.”
Troubling, indeed. But “His Arrogance” did not stop there. “We also hold,” declared Reinhardt, “that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students.” According to Reinhardt, public schools can expose children to the most ridiculous and vile smut, and parents cannot do a thing about it.
The ruling is all the more outrageous given the fact that Reinhardt also issued the infamous 2002 ruling that declared the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional. To justify himself, Reinhardt stated, in part, that such a religious phrase violated the rights of atheist parents to instill their own set of values in their children.
So, Reinhardt thinks that exposing school-aged children to the Deity is unconstitutional, but exposing them to obnoxious sex surveys is not.
Sexual indulgence – Yes. God – No.
Privacy for criminals – Yes. Privacy for parents – No.
Textbook liberalism.
And they wonder why they never win at the polls. Figure that one out.
Copyright by Eric Reikowski
