Rousseau and the Ninth Circuit
On Nov 2, 2005, the Ninth Circuit decided a case that concerned the rights of parents to direct the education of their children. Specifically, the parents were worried about the sexual content of certain surveys that were being given to ELEMENTARY students (ages 7 to 10). The court decided that "there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children."
This post will not get into the constitutional basis and rightness or wrongness of the decision, that discussion will be left for much smarter people. The only thing I will mention on the subject is that the opinion cites a book by Justice Breyer to support "the importance of our evolving understanding of the nature of our Constitution."
I just wanted to share a few thoughts on Jean Jacques Rousseau. With the help of the Ninth Circuit, Rousseau is still influencing society --
Rousseau identified parents’ proper role in raising their children—which is no role whatsoever. Rousseau believed that the obligation for raising children should be taken away from parents and given to the State. The State is based on a social contact: “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” Individual interests as well as interests common among some associations may be wrong, but the general will is infallible. “It is therefore essential, if the general will is to be able to express itself, that there should be no partial society within the State . . . But if there are partial societies, it is best to have as many as possible ant to prevent them from being unequal.” If parents are allowed to direct the education of their children, it may be inconsistent with the will of the Sovereign. The court is simply enforcing the social contract: “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less that he will be forced to be free.” With this Ninth Circuit decision, both the parents and children can be forced to be free.
(Note -- Rousseau did follow his theory of abandoning intermediate institutions between the individual and the State to its logical conclusion. For Rousseau, the family was not a primary structure of society. He had five children in his common law marriage. Each one was given up to the state after they were born.)
With that said, the most important thing to take from this case is the following: if you disagree with this decision, don't think it is the end of the issue. Call your congressmen. The courts (especially the Ninth Circuit) are NOT the final arbiter of our laws. The people, through our elected officials can change laws.
Or, if you believe in Ockham's Razor -- just send your children to Catholic School.
This post will not get into the constitutional basis and rightness or wrongness of the decision, that discussion will be left for much smarter people. The only thing I will mention on the subject is that the opinion cites a book by Justice Breyer to support "the importance of our evolving understanding of the nature of our Constitution."
I just wanted to share a few thoughts on Jean Jacques Rousseau. With the help of the Ninth Circuit, Rousseau is still influencing society --
Rousseau identified parents’ proper role in raising their children—which is no role whatsoever. Rousseau believed that the obligation for raising children should be taken away from parents and given to the State. The State is based on a social contact: “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” Individual interests as well as interests common among some associations may be wrong, but the general will is infallible. “It is therefore essential, if the general will is to be able to express itself, that there should be no partial society within the State . . . But if there are partial societies, it is best to have as many as possible ant to prevent them from being unequal.” If parents are allowed to direct the education of their children, it may be inconsistent with the will of the Sovereign. The court is simply enforcing the social contract: “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less that he will be forced to be free.” With this Ninth Circuit decision, both the parents and children can be forced to be free.
(Note -- Rousseau did follow his theory of abandoning intermediate institutions between the individual and the State to its logical conclusion. For Rousseau, the family was not a primary structure of society. He had five children in his common law marriage. Each one was given up to the state after they were born.)
With that said, the most important thing to take from this case is the following: if you disagree with this decision, don't think it is the end of the issue. Call your congressmen. The courts (especially the Ninth Circuit) are NOT the final arbiter of our laws. The people, through our elected officials can change laws.
Or, if you believe in Ockham's Razor -- just send your children to Catholic School.
posted by Ransom at 7:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home