Hello,
   I am still hoping to hear a response from "liberty 4 all" in regards to my recent questions. I appreciate Ms. Hohensee's response, but would like to challenge Liberty 4 all to answer.
Thank you,
Eric Potter

No. Parents have directed the education of their children without government oversight until very recently. A large number
of states continue to allow parents the right to direct the
education of their children without interference or oversight.

Home education laws that restrict parental rights are quite new.
Most of these laws were enacted in the 1980's as parents
feared continued state harassment without an explicit law
allowing them to teach their children at home. Most of these
laws were written with the help of HSLDA and are quite
inequitable.

On Jul 1, 2009, at 4:26 PM, QT - Eric Potter wrote:
>
> 3) Do you not realize that we have been operating under the
> premises of an implicit "fundamental right" for the life of our
> country which has been protected by the US Supreme Court? The
> currently proposed amendment freezes things as they are and
> offers a possiblity to regain our rights already lost.

Hello,
   I want to eventually respond to all of the articles referenced, but I only have time to respond to the "Revive the Republic" article quickly.
   What this article is advocating is an "absolute" right of parents. I have a few questions: 1) Do we want an absolute right? The article even notes that unless abuse occurs, we are free to raise our children as we want. Therefore, he advocates a non-absolute, absolute right. 2) So you advocate fighting 50 state battles, which could be collectively overturned by a constitutional amendment or thwarted by the federal checkbook i.e. federal legistlation requiring outlawing of home schooling or forfeit federal education money. What is your plan for winning these state battles?
3) Do you not realize that we have been operating under the premises of an implicit "fundamental right" for the life of our country which has been protected by the US Supreme Court? The currently proposed amendment freezes things as they are and offers a possiblity to regain our rights already lost. 4) Exactly how do we convince enough of the populace that an absolute right is necessary when many don't even buy into the fundamental right because they think it is too strong?
   I need to examine further the proposed legistlation linked in this document, but am not convinced by the argument so far. I will continue to investigate this issue and continue to post here with my further thoughts.
Thank you,

Home Education Magazine has a regular column, titled “Taking Charge”, which is written by Larry and Susan Kaseman. It is always worthwhile reading!

Here are 3 of their articles that pertain to this matter:

http://homeedmag.com/HEM/253/takingcharge.html
May - June, 2008
Taking Charge - Larry and Susan Kaseman
Can a Constitutional Amendment Protect Parental Rights?

http://www.homeedmag.com/HEM/166/nd_clmn_tch.html
November-December 1999 - Columns
Taking Charge
Convincing Others We Don't Want Homeschooling Legislation - Larry and Susan Kaseman

http://www.homeedmag.com/HEM/HEM154.98/154.98_clmn_tkch.html
July-August 1998 - Columns
Taking Charge - Larry and Susan Kaseman
Responding to Current Legislative Challenges Promoted by National Organizations

Readers/Posters on this thread will want to check out the following:

http://www.revivetherepublic.com/a_constit...parental_rights.htm
A Constitutional Amendment to Support Parental Rights?
by Kerry L. Morgan

Eric,
Check out information at http://hsislegal.com/ This site contains info on HSLDA.

Eric:

Education has not been ceded to the state government. Witness the existence of non-public, private education. You do not understand inalienable rights if you can claim that they are not firm enough ground upon which to stand. I find that disturbing for a student of law.

In 1991 I drafted the first Parental Rights legislation, which HSLDA opposed. Then HSLDA turned around and tried to enact federal
legislation with their own defective version of the PRA. My amendment was to the NH Constitution; it read "No man shall be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed." I was modeled on the Kentucky amendment which affords parents the right to home school without state oversight. A parent need only affirm his opposition to public school; HSLDA insists that parents would have to prove conscientious objection since they failed to read the background of the KY amendment. Imo HSLDA opposed my PRA because they oppose inalienable rights of conscience. They prefer to support restricted religious rights for those individuals belonging to state approved churches.

Hs'ers in many states have had problems with HSLDA.

Doris

On May 22, 2009, at 10:23 PM, QT - Eric Potter wrote:

>
< replied-to message removed by QT >

Hello Doris,
  I apologize for being slow in responding. That does not mean I have not been pondering our discussion and researching the issue. I have even been in the trenches at our state legislature testifying to get parental rights for children's medical records restored.
-- After reading your side, I still have a number of disagreements with your approach. I agree that the government should stay out of education, but the people have ceded that perogative at least to state governments. Given the federal governments ability to influence states with their checkbooks, the feds also have a finger in the resulting legislation. I can not see how you plan to keep either completely out of home education. State laws will be made, and at least HSLDA seems to recognize this fact so that they work within the system to make the best of a far from perfect situation. Your approach seems to want to hide from this fact and hope for the seemingly impossible ideal situation. You say that I am doing something and hoping it works, but I would challenge that you are doing likewise.
--- I also believe that you are being too focused on the home schooling issue and ignoring the wider scope of parental rights which would be protected by the amendment. You seem willing to sacrifice the wider rights so that you can protect homeschooling. If I am mistaken, please explain to me why my perspective is incorrect. If you think the amendment is bad for all parental rights, please explain that also.
---- Your right to home educate may be inalienable, but in a culture more and more dominated by those who ascribe no value to "inalienable" rights granted by a sovereign being, only those rights explicitly stated in words may carry legal weight. Those inalienable rights will not protect you from a legal system which does not recognize rights granted by a higher power.
--- For clarity's sake, I agree that fighting federal law is daunting, but my recent experience at the state level proves to me that there are just as many at the state level who are opposed to our shared desire to protect parental rights. They are firmly set in their belief that the state is better equipped to decide the "best interest of the child". This was even stated publicly in a recent state legislature committee meeting by an elected official of our state. They also use federal law to attempt defeat of efforts to return control to the parents. That is another reason why I don't believe the ground of state sovereignty and inalienable rights is firm enough to hold us up under the pressure of government forces against us. A constitutional amendment would provide firmer ground than "hoping we could win at the state level" in my opinion. Then we could fight from the high position down the hill to win back these rights state by state. To me the battle is uphill if we start at the state level without an amendment as sure footing.
-- I am concerned about your allegations towards HSLDA on multiple occasions betray a deeper issue. Can you provide evidence supporting your statement that homeschoolers in other states have complained of HSLDA influenced legislation? I may not agree with every single stance of HSLDA and may choose to not participate in tax breaks HSLDA has helped created, but overall I see their reasoning to be sound, their approach realistic, and their intentions to be genuinely for the best of parents.
--- Very interested in hearing your responses and continuing our dialogue,
Eric P

Rutgers? Glad to hear you're writing a paper on the topic. I'm trying to put together a website to reframe the discussion on
homeschooling. The discussion shouldn't be which state has more or less regulation (comparison), but how does the state treat non-public educators in the state? Equitably or not?

For the last 20 years, HSLDA has helped enact public home education laws across the country, only to benefit financially from whatever regulations follow. Any state that has more oversight for home educators than non-public (private) schools, is treating parents inequitably. Those are public home education laws. We need more private home education laws, with no state oversight. Parents are not guilty of educational neglect until proven innocent on an annual basis.
A fundamental right is a court created right. What the court gives, the court can rescind. My right to educate my child is inalienable; it precedes the state. Think about it for just one second. If the state has the right to force education upon its citizens without exception (non-public education), they have free reign to
indoctrinate the most vulnerable members of society, children.

Education is not a federal issue. The feds have stolen this power through redistribution of our tax money. Enacting federal laws on education invades what has historically been a state issue. Believe me, fighting state laws are difficult enough for parents; fighting federal mandates are impossible to the average parent. It makes mockery of the concept of self-government on such an important issue. In my opinion, education should be a local issue (not a state issue), because then parents could actually have some modicum of control over their public schools. As it is, responsible parents have no real control and have resorted to removing their children via home
education; loss of local control is the cause of the home schooling movement.

Doris


On May 21, 2009, at 11:21 AM, QT - anonymous in NJ wrote:

>
< replied-to message removed by QT >

I am very interested in this discussion. In fact, I am a law school student at a top law school and am writing a paper on the topic. I would be curious as well to hear why Doris opposes the amendment. I see we are on the same side, but just disagreeing about the means. My mind is not made up about the PRA. Doris, what about Troxel, in which some members of the Supreme Court did not believe parental rights are fundamental and they therefore would rule that grandparents can get rights over grandchildren against parents wishes? Why don't you think this amendment preserve rights so the Supreme Court would have to uphold parental rights and it would supercede the UN council on rights of the child. I agree we need to fight the treaty, but why not also support the amendment? Especially because we then have a second means of protection if the UN treaty still gets passed.

Eric:

I inserted one "NOT" in capital letters into my corrected response.
Here's an old website, probably 10 years old, that I compiled
regarding the history of New Hampshire's 1990 home education law, HSLDA's sponsorship of the law, my opposition, etc.

 http://www.mainstream.com/nhpolitics/nh.html

Not only did HSLDA work to burden us with an intrusive public home ed law (by public, I mean state oversight; private, would have no state oversight), but HSLDA was active in opposing our efforts to remedy our situation in NH in the years following our '90 home ed law.

You will find on the website that I proposed a state-based PRA (not federal-based one like HSLDA is doing now which undermines local state control of education), which copied the Kentucky Resolution: "no man shall be compelled to send his child to any school to which he MAY BE conscientiously opposed." One does not have to prove conscientious objection like those who opposed the war; one need only state their opposition to be covered under this constitutional amendment. HSLDA opposed us.

Explain to me how HSLDA could oppose our PRA, oppose our efforts to create private home education programs, etc. We tried year after year, as documented on my website. I have the evidence of their opposition in NH and evidence of their problematic interference elsewhere. Tell me why I should not draw the conclusions I have based upon my direct confrontations with HSLDA in my state. My experiences in NH are not exceptional; hs'ers in other states have had similar stories. HSLDA is on a mission, but that mission will erode both my parental rights and my freedom.

Doris

On May 6, 2009, at 4:20 PM, QT - Eric Potter MD wrote:

>
< replied-to message removed by QT >

Doris,
   I appreciate your quick response. I don't have time to respond fully right now, but wanted to ask a couple of questions to help me
   understand your position.
  First, I am assuming that non-pulblic status for home schoolers means that no form of government would oversee them or require anything from them. Is that correct?
   I am curious to know what the HSLDA's "goals" are. I have heard and read several statements, but would like a clear answer and proof of that answer. So far from my reading, I have not seen either. Can you spell out what you believe are their goals and provide evidence? Thank you for your time in dialoguing on this issue. I hope we are both able to learn from our interaction and I look forward to your answers so I can respond more fully and clearly in a few days when my son's birthday activities are finished.

  Sincerely,
  Eric Potter MD

  PS: I received a second e-mail about a correction to your initial response. I did not see the difference as the text wrapping made it difficult to compare the two paragraphs.

one correction below....
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> Eric:
>
> I find it interesting that you point out the existing problem
> with our current HSLDA-inspired public home education laws.
> One federal program to outlaw public home education by
> enticing states with our tax dollars and home education could
> be further restricted or
> eliminated. Thus, the need to have non-public status for home
> educators. HSLDA hasn't worked towards getting non-public
> status for hs'ers in any state. They only seek publicly
> regulated home ed statutes along with religious exemptions for
> the few with their RFRA's.
> If you understand constitutional rights, then you know that most
> home education laws are inequitable. There is no equal
> treatment before the law for home educators. Private schools
> are NOT required to submit test their results to the state; no
> private school is ever shut down for failure to show adequate
> educational progress of their students; even public schools
> are not shut down for failing to show educational progress of
> its students. Why are home educators required to do so?
> You need to look more carefully at the specifics of the
> constitution and the PRA. You can't just say something needs
> to be done and hope the PRA will make things better.
>
> Our HSLDA-inspired public home ed statutes haven't helped
> parents reclaim their constitutional right to educate their
> children at home without state interference. What makes you
> think the HSLDA-inspired PRA will do any better? Do you even
> know what HSLDA's goals are?
>
> Doris
>
> On May 5, 2009, at 8:21 PM, QT - Eric Potter wrote:
>
>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> To unsubscribe: http://www.quicktopic.com/42/X/t7gXyaF3yqQ
> Start your own topic in 20 seconds: http://www.quicktopic.com |QT
>

Eric:

I find it interesting that you point out the existing problem with our current HSLDA-inspired public home education laws. One federal program to outlaw public home education by enticing states with our tax dollars and home education could be further restricted or
eliminated. Thus, the need to have non-public status for home
educators. HSLDA hasn't worked towards getting non-public status for hs'ers in any state. They only seek publicly regulated home ed statutes along with religious exemptions for the few with their RFRA's.
If you understand constitutional rights, then you know that most home education laws are inequitable. There is no equal treatment before the law for home educators. Private schools are required to submit test their results to the state; no private school is ever shut down for failure to show adequate educational progress of their students; even public schools are not shut down for failing to show educational progress of its students. Why are home educators required to do so?
You need to look more carefully at the specifics of the constitution and the PRA. You can't just say something needs to be done and hope the PRA will make things better.

Our HSLDA-inspired public home ed statutes haven't helped parents reclaim their constitutional right to educate their children at home without state interference. What makes you think the HSLDA-inspired PRA will do any better? Do you even know what HSLDA's goals are?

Doris

On May 5, 2009, at 8:21 PM, QT - Eric Potter wrote:

>
< replied-to message removed by QT >

Good evening,
   I am the Tennessee Director for Parental Rights.Org which agrees with you in opposition to the U.N. Convention, but which is a staunch supporter of the Parental Rights Amendment. I have studied the issue and read your arguments/evidence. I still support the Parental Rights Amendment as a limit on federal government encroachment into parental rights. I see the issue differently than you do. The federal government is pressing its control of various areas of our lives. For example, the administration is not hiding its planned overhaul of public schools. More specifically, one simple regulation that required states to outlaw homeschooling if attached to "funding" would entice states to sacrifice their sovereignty for a "check". (I have no idea if that is part of the plan, just a hypothetical, yet possible example).
   What I am saying is that the federal government does not need an invitation to intrude in our lives; it is already doing so. Therefore, my perspective on the amendment is that it provides a hedge against something already happening rather than opening a door (i.e. the door is already open). It does this by giving the power back to the individual which is what the Bill of Rights in principle does.
   I am interested in finding the truth. Therefore, I want to dialogue with those who agree and those who don't. If you want to dialogue and find the truth that we can both agree to, I am open to that.