Bunny Trails

[Ken]

For example, it was used to prohibit compulsory public education, prohibit mandatory sterilization of disabled women, and to overrule state laws that prohibited interracial marriage.

P.S. if any of these issues were decided by the SCOTUS before Brown v Board of Education (1954) I am certainly not aware of it. Can you cite applicable SCOTUS cases referring to these issues with dates, please?

P.S. P.S. I'm aware that we have gotten far away from the topic of this thread. (My bad, I apologize.) So, if a moderator wishes to move these posts to a more applicable thread, please be my guest, thanks!

Pierce v. Society of Sisters struck down compulsory public education in 1925 on 14th amendment grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v. ... of_Sisters

Loving v. Virginia which struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage was 1967 so after Brown.

Prohibitions on mandatory sterilization were folded into larger disability rights cases and laws and also after Brown.

[Falco Underhill]

Pierce v. Society of Sisters struck down compulsory public education in 1925 on 14th amendment grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v. ... of_Sisters

Loving v. Virginia which struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage was 1967 so after Brown.

Prohibitions on mandatory sterilization were folded into larger disability rights cases and laws and also after Brown.

So, according to the Wiki article itself, Pierce v Society (1925) marked the first clear transition in the Court's use of the substantive due process doctrine from being used to defend property, freedom and contractual rights to its use to affirm "civil rights".

This decision marked the start of the Supreme Court's recognition that due process protected individual liberties; specifically, the Court recognized consciously that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to entities other than individuals, and recognized the scope of liberties or rights which it protected included personal civil liberties. Over the course of the next half century, that list would come to include the right to marry, to have children, to marital privacy or to have an abortion.

It's very interesting that the plaintiffs in the case only argued on 14th Amendment grounds with respect to their freedom and contractual rights regarding their school properties. They mostly argued their case on 1st Amendment grounds of freedom to practice their religion, but somehow the Court ended up ruling that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment could be used to protect certain civil rights from being encroached on by the state. That was its first such use. (Thanks! I didn't know that.)

Interesting, too, that Justice Anthony Kennedy later argued the whole case could have been solved (presumably with the same results?) on 1st Amendment grounds alone.

Anyway, it was hailed by the sisters as a "remarkably liberal education policy" decision that protected their rights against state encroachment.

The right of parents to control their children's education without state interference became a "cause célèbre" following the case, and religious groups proactively defended this right from state encroachment. R. Scott Appleby wrote in the American Journal of Education that this led to a "remarkably liberal" education policy wherein religious schools are not subjected to state accreditation but only to "minimal state health and safety" laws.[10]

That was "remarkably liberal," in the good sense, as opposed to "remarkably "neoliberal" which is not so very good, imo!

[Ken]

Pierce v. Society of Sisters struck down compulsory public education in 1925 on 14th amendment grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v. ... of_Sisters

Loving v. Virginia which struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage was 1967 so after Brown.

Prohibitions on mandatory sterilization were folded into larger disability rights cases and laws and also after Brown.

So, according to the Wiki article itself, Pierce v Society (1925) marked the first clear transition in the Court's use of the substantive due process doctrine from being used to defend property, freedom and contractual rights to its use to affirm "civil rights".

This decision marked the start of the Supreme Court's recognition that due process protected individual liberties; specifically, the Court recognized consciously that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to entities other than individuals, and recognized the scope of liberties or rights which it protected included personal civil liberties. Over the course of the next half century, that list would come to include the right to marry, to have children, to marital privacy or to have an abortion.

It's very interesting that the plaintiffs in the case only argued on 14th Amendment grounds with respect to their freedom and contractual rights regarding their school properties. They mostly argued their case on 1st Amendment grounds of freedom to practice their religion, but somehow the Court ended up ruling that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment could be used to protect certain civil rights from being encroached on by the state. That was its first such use. (Thanks! I didn't know that.)

Interesting, too, that Justice Anthony Kennedy later argued the whole case could have been solved (presumably with the same results?) on 1st Amendment grounds alone.

Anyway, it was hailed by the sisters as a "remarkably liberal education policy" decision that protected their rights against state encroachment.

The right of parents to control their children's education without state interference became a "cause célèbre" following the case, and religious groups proactively defended this right from state encroachment. R. Scott Appleby wrote in the American Journal of Education that this led to a "remarkably liberal" education policy wherein religious schools are not subjected to state accreditation but only to "minimal state health and safety" laws.[10]

That was "remarkably liberal," in the good sense, as opposed to "remarkably "neoliberal" which is not so very good, imo!

Arguably it could NOT have been resolved in the same fashion on 1st Amendment grounds alone because there are many many private schools that are not religious and many parents who may have non-religious reasons for wanting to keep their kids out of public schools.

In other words, the court carved out a right for ALL students to avoid compulsory public education, not just those who happened to have a religious objection to public education. In order to do that they had to reach to the 14th Amendment not the 1st Amendment.

Because of Pierce I am now entitled to send my children to any private school, religious or otherwise, or even homeschool them. And for any reason, not just religious reasons. I may think the private school is better, safer, has a curriculum I agree with, or is simply more convenient. I don't need to cite a religious reason or send them only to a religious school to have that right, as would have been the case if Pierce had been decided on 1st Amendment grounds alone.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Falco Underhill]

Pierce v. Society of Sisters struck down compulsory public education in 1925 on 14th amendment grounds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierce_v. ... of_Sisters

Loving v. Virginia which struck down prohibitions on interracial marriage was 1967 so after Brown.

Prohibitions on mandatory sterilization were folded into larger disability rights cases and laws and also after Brown.

So, according to the Wiki article itself, Pierce v Society (1925) marked the first clear transition in the Court's use of the substantive due process doctrine from being used to defend property, freedom and contractual rights to its use to affirm "civil rights".

This decision marked the start of the Supreme Court's recognition that due process protected individual liberties; specifically, the Court recognized consciously that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to entities other than individuals, and recognized the scope of liberties or rights which it protected included personal civil liberties. Over the course of the next half century, that list would come to include the right to marry, to have children, to marital privacy or to have an abortion.

It's very interesting that the plaintiffs in the case only argued on 14th Amendment grounds with respect to their freedom and contractual rights regarding their school properties. They mostly argued their case on 1st Amendment grounds of freedom to practice their religion, but somehow the Court ended up ruling that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment could be used to protect certain civil rights from being encroached on by the state. That was its first such use. (Thanks! I didn't know that.)

Interesting, too, that Justice Anthony Kennedy later argued the whole case could have been solved (presumably with the same results?) on 1st Amendment grounds alone.

Anyway, it was hailed by the sisters as a "remarkably liberal education policy" decision that protected their rights against state encroachment.

The right of parents to control their children's education without state interference became a "cause célèbre" following the case, and religious groups proactively defended this right from state encroachment. R. Scott Appleby wrote in the American Journal of Education that this led to a "remarkably liberal" education policy wherein religious schools are not subjected to state accreditation but only to "minimal state health and safety" laws.[10]

That was "remarkably liberal," in the good sense, as opposed to "remarkably "neoliberal" which is not so very good, imo!

Arguably it could NOT have been resolved on 1st Amendment grounds alone because there are many many private schools that are not religious and many parents who may have non-religious reasons for wanting to keep their kids out of public schools.

In other words, the court carved out a right for ALL students to avoid compulsory public education, not just those who happened to have a religious objection to public education. In order to do that they had to reach to the 14th Amendment not the 1st Amendment.

Because of Pierce I am now entitled to send my children to any private school, religious or otherwise, and for any reason, not just religious reasons. I may think the private school is better, safer, has a curriculum I agree with, or is simply more convenient. I don't need to cite a religious reason to have that right as I would have to if the case was decided on 1st Amendment grounds alone.

I suspect Kennedy meant to say that arguments on 1st Amendment grounds alone could somehow have served the exact same purpose, which is why I'd be interested to hear his reasons. I didnt argue with the outcome of the case, as you described it, but that's what I called "remarkably liberal" in a good sense, as opposed to some neoliberal trends I might criticize today.

[Falco Underhill]

Addendum: Kennedy's statement referred to his dissenting opinion in Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 95 (2000):

"Pierce and Meyer, had they been decided in recent times, may well have been grounded upon First Amendment principles protecting freedom of speech, belief, and religion"

— Kennedy, J., dissenting.

Maybe in his reasoning, protection of "beliefs," which he apparently saw as implied by the 1st Amendment, would have also resulted in the same outcome, eh?

[Falco Underhill]

Now people begin to wonder... who made the court the ultimate arbiters with respect to the American ideals of freedom? (Answer: they did!) And if the U.S. Supreme Court gets to decide such controversial social issues with the changing of the times where will it all stop?

When the times change again, will it draw the line at polyamorous relationships? At pedophilia, or at bestiality? (Don't laugh! There are already people speaking out in defense of these very things. They may be marginal now but do you expect them to stay that way? I don't! )

In my mind, a very simple test about whether to extend rights is whether or not there is a victim. Or, put another way, does your right harm or infringe on others.

Pedophilia? Definitely victims

Polygamy? Potentially victims (divorces, inheritance, etc. become complex and problematic)

Gay marriage? No victims. Some Christians opposed to gay marriage claim it harms "traditional" marriage. But I fail to see how my traditional marriage to my wife is harmed if my gay neighbors wish to get married.

Inter-racial marriage? No victims

Birth control? No victims

Abortion? To the extent there is a victim depends on your definitions of when life begins, when an individual gets a soul and becomes a person. This is easily the most challenging issue.

Bestiality? I think this is pretty uncommon and we slaughter animals by the billions in this country. So I'm not particularly opinionated one way or the other on this one. I'm not an animal rights person generally speaking. I'm more interested in preserving habitat and wildlife. Bestiality is certainly outside of societal norms. But I don't think we have an epidemic of bestiality in this country to worry about.

Yet.

Regarding pedophilia there are people with legal expertise right now redefining it and explaining why there really is no victim here - not if you understand it correctly. In fact, we really shouldn't draw any hard lines with respect to consent because children of the same age often have different maturity developments to understand and give their consent, depending on how early they have been properly educated.

So, maybe you disagree with it these arguments but maybe down the line some justices will decide it's a viewpoint that should also be granted protection regardless of your personal viewpoint.

Now what do you do?

As to bestiality, your reasons for not worrying about it are exactly the reasons why others are arguing that it should be legalized!

[temporal1]

Yet.
Regarding pedophilia there are people with legal expertise right now redefining it and explaining why there really is no victim here - not if you understand it correctly. In fact, we really shouldn't draw any hard lines with respect to consent because children of the same age often have different maturity developments to understand and give their consent, depending on how early they have been properly educated.

So, maybe you disagree with it these arguments but maybe down the line some justices will decide it's a viewpoint that should also be granted protection regardless of your personal viewpoint.

Now what do you do?

As to bestiality, your reasons for not worrying about it are exactly the reasons why others are arguing that it should be legalized!

https:/

i did not view the video. who knows how many children/minors have? and worse.

i believe you are correct, if anything, conservative+behind reality, not speculating.
PNW middle schoolers are talking about bestiality. they are awash with carnal perversions.

children+minors have enjoyed lots of legal protections from exploitations, probably since the beginning of the Industrial Age,
in recent decades, esp following the 1990’s, after the Catholic priest abuse cases blew up, lines have been blurred, protections of minors/dependents eroded .. rights of parents with their children+teens in SCHOOLS+HEALTHCARE abolished! children+teens are groomed to LIE TO THEIR PARENTS ..

parents are SPECIALLY OMITTED from their children’s lives -
while OTHER NON-FAMILIAL ADULTS are granted SPECIAL ACCESS+RELATIONSHIPS with them!

my 14 year old PNW granddaughter just had to sign privacy release papers to allow her parents access to medical records.
(some states require this at age 11.)

in the past, MINORS could not enter into legal contracts (for instance, to buy a car) - how can children/minors have the judgment to make medical, psychiatric, reproductive decisions??! no.

children/minors have OPINIONS. they have WANTS. they do NOT have maturity. not close.

Falco,
no matter what “winning” legal language is crafted, the results will be: EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN/TEENS/MINORS.
it’s well underway. not some distant, vague speculation, “20 years from now” .. no.

have parents abused, been negligent, etc.? - YES. a minority.
will crafting laws to PUNISH+RESTRICT ALL PARENTS “fix” it? - NO.

doors are open to lots of non-familial adults to abuse.
already a problem, with new laws, they won’t be caught or held responsible. “they have every right” ..

unfortunately, people have freely voted for all these things+more. (just try to find any who will admit to it.)
i won’t hold my breath.

this forum has become a place to get a real eyeful about gov schools, no speculation involved. (from the horses’ mouths.)
read it+weep.

at least, stop voting for it. that’s the very least place to begin.

[Falco Underhill]

My only point here is that some of us might be shocked to see to what purpose our own arguments can be used.

Example: When Hegel put his system into place did he foresee to what purpose Marx would put his system? Did he foresee the atheistic totalitarian governments and the gulags?

My guess is Hegel would have been genuinely shocked to see it. It probably wasn't anywhere near his intent, but there you have it, it happened!

My point is beware of slippery slopes! The gospel is more realistic about the potential for human depravity than many an enlightened secularist would give it credit for!

[temporal1]

My only point here is that some of us might be shocked to see to what purpose our own arguments can be used.

Example:
When Hegel put his system into place did he foresee to what purpose Marx would put his system?
Did he foresee the atheistic totalitarian governments and the gulags?

My guess is Hegel would have been genuinely shocked to see it.
It probably wasn't anywhere near his intent, but there you have it, it happened!

My point is beware of slippery slopes!
The gospel is more realistic about the potential for human depravity than many an enlightened secularist would give it credit for!

Diamond


2021 / Hegelian Dialectic / Page 3

In this article The Synthesis Moment of the SBC is an interesting insight into the secularization of church leadership. What do you think about it?

This is exactly how the left took control of the Roman Catholic Church at Vatican Ii.
Want to see how that was done? Just look at what's going on here. Same game plan.

This is an good analysis of the Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis tactic created by Hegel.
Hegel is the source of modern ideological activism.
Marxists use the same tactics because they are Hegelians. (Marx was a Hegelian scholar before he was a Marxist.
Marxism is really just a modified form of Hegelianism.)

So many just unknowingly play right along - what Marx referred to as "useful idiots." (corrected)

"Conservative" Hegelians are the real wolves in sheep's clothing.
They go in first to prepare the way for the more openly leftward.

The Overton Window.
As Bill Clinton explained, you have to pick the fruit that's within reach first.
Then maybe later the fruit higher up will be within reach.
This is called being "realistic." That's how it works. Every new gain will be used as another step to reach more the next time.

Sounds like LAW SCHOOL 101 ^^^
TOO MANY POLITICIANS HAVE LAW DEGREES. Then come the internet wannabees.

The proper thing to do with any "conservative' Hegelian is to kick them out, forcefully.

Probably too late to do that.
They've already got themselves entrenched in leadership positions.
Any leaders who vote against the agenda will lose their positions/jobs.
Probably the only way out of their clutches now would be to schism, in which case they walk away with half the organization''s assets. Thanks for playing.

"Striking the shepherds so the sheep will be scattered" is their MO.

Collosians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,
(A) which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces[a] of this world(B) rather than on Christ.

We give them leadership positions instead.

[Falco Underhill]

One major criticism I might have now about what I wrote back then is that perhaps I attributed too much conscious intent on the part of "Hegelians." Many of them are probably just well intentioned, intelligent people, who would be appalled and heartbroken if they saw to what ends such arguments could be put by others.