Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.leadingthecharge.com/stories/news-00100808.html" target="_blank">http://www.leadingthecharge.co m/stories/news-00100808.html</a> >>The House voted Wednesday to scold a San Francisco-based federal appeals court for dismissing a lawsuit by parents outraged that a school district surveyed their young children about sex. The resolution says the 9th Circuit should rehear Fields v. Palmdale School District. The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel earlier this month said that "parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information" on sex to students. But Rep. How, , ), D-Calif., said Congress shouldn‘t get involved. The Palmdale School District, north of Los Angeles, had given the survey to first-, third- and fifth-graders, but dropped it in 2002 after parents complained. It was part of a program to gauge early trauma and help youngsters overcome barriers to learning, and asked students, among other things, how often they thought about sex. House Republicans are pushing legislation to divide the circuit, which covers nine Western states, into two pieces, arguing it‘s gotten too big to be effective. The Bush administration supports the move but it‘s meeting resistance in the Senate. The bill is H. Res. 547. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://thereporter.com/letters/ci_3217736" target="_blank">http://thereporter.com/letters /ci_3217736</a> >>The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the most overruled circuit in the country. For off-the-wall liberalism, it has no peer. And Judge Stephen Reinhardt often plays ringmaster to this out-of-control circus. Judge Reinhardt thinks "under God" in the Pledge of Alleggance is unconstitutional, but sex surveys of 7-year-olds are not. The circus has now ruled that the Palmdale school district can ask first-, third-, and fifth-graders intrusive questions about "touching my private parts too much," "getting scared or upset when I think about sex," "can't stop thinking about sex," and so on. Parents in the Palmdale school district were not informed that such sexually offensive questions would be asked of their little children. When they brought suit, Judge Reinhardt brought down the gavel on them. "There is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children," Reinhardt ruled. Further, he wrote, "parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools ..." It is hard to imagine that any of those sitting judges who issued this infamous ruling ever had a 7-year-old child. This outrageous and offensive result must be overturned. It is one more horrible example of what happens to parents' rights when liberal judicial activists are unchecked. Whatever happened to the child's right to be a child? The U.S. Supreme Court in 1925 recognized parents' rights in the landmark case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters. There, the high court said: "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." Those who "nurture" the child and "direct his destiny" are commonly called parents. Eighty years ago, the Supreme Court showed great respect for parents' rights. Today, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals showed nothing but contempt. <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13184748.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld /mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/13184748.htm</a> >>The House voted Wednesday to scold a San Francisco-based federal appeals court for dismissing a lawsuit by parents outraged that a school district surveyed their young children about sex. Over objections from some Democrats who complained Republicans were seeking the kind of judicial activism the GOP normally denounces, lawmakers voted 320 to 91 for a resolution that said the decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals "deplorably infringed on parental rights." The resolution says the 9th Circuit should rehear Fields v. Palmdale School District. The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel earlier this month said that "parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information" on sex to students.<<
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Yes, a survey that asks kids about sexuality is going to permanently harm them. They should just stop thinking about sex and go turn on the TV and watch their local news station during sweeps month.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yes, a survey that asks kids about sexuality is going to permanently harm them.> Did you read the survey, and the ages of the kids it was given to? Did you hear how the school district presented every portion of the survey to the parents beforehand, except for the sex part?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's a local issue, Douglas. The House shouldn't even be involved in the internal matters of a local school district, should they?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh When it ends up at the 9th circuit, it's no longer a local matter. The Constitution gives the Congress oversight over the federal courts.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh But my post number 8 was specifically in response to your post no 6, which did not discuss the House. Are you defending the survey?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I'm not defending the survey, nor am I attacking it. And Congress does not have oversight over court decisions.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I'm not defending the survey, nor am I attacking it. And Congress does not have oversight over court decisions." Exactly. For the House to do this was incredibly improper. Did any of these guys ever pay attention in Civics?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm not defending the survey, nor am I attacking it.> So what was the point of post 6? <And Congress does not have oversight over court decisions.> Over court decisions, no, over the court, yes. Article III, section 2, clause 2.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <For the House to do this was incredibly improper. Did any of these guys ever pay attention in Civics?> Did you? I don't see anything in the Constitution saying what they did was improper.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'll respond as soon as you post something intelligent, or at least factual.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'm amused that you think you are a good judge of what is an intelligent argument, and what is not. If you actually had some facts to post, or a valid opinion, you'd post it. That instead you spend your time denigrating others shows you don't.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >So what was the point of post 6?< The kids are surrounded by a commercial culture that commodifies sex to increase corporate profits. That is far more damaging than a couple of questions on a survey.
