The idea that state legislators, faced with home schooling questions, are reflecting on the "best reading" of Pierce, Yoder, or the Constitution (and which parts of that would they be reading?) strikes me as spectacularly fanciful. If they cared about what legal research disclosed (rather than what their constituents, supporters, or the Board of Ed wants, and why), they would know that many decisions have interpreted Pierce and Yoder as NOT requiring a right of home schooling, and that no decisions have held the opposite. They might be attentive to what other states have done, but not to any constitution-based reasons that might explain that.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Paul Horwitz <phorw...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Of course, it is also possible that these legislators believe that it *is* > unconstitutional to heavily regulate homeschooling, either because it's the > best reading of Yoder and Pierce going forward (and given the premise that > those decisions leave the point unresolved), or because they are > independently obliged to read and follow the Constitution and believe this > is what its best reading demands. Even if one believes that the Court has > the last word on constitutional questions, no one need believe it has the > only word. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Feb 2, 2015, at 2:25 PM, "Hillel Y. Levin" <hillelle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > But the Court's decisions in Yoder and Pierce v. Society of Sisters play > an important role too. Together, these cases leave the question of whether > the state can prohibit or heavily regulate home schooling open, and they > suggest (though do not explicitly find) a parental right of some sort. The > pro-homeschooling groups make use of these cases when they lobby, leaving > regulators with the impression that it might be unconstitutional to heavily > regulate homeschooling. As a result--together with the political economy on > the matter and the practical questions about how the state meaningfully > *could* regulate homeschooling--they often throw their hands up and > concede. > > > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as > private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are > posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or > wrongly) forward the messages to others. > -- Ira C. Lupu F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law, Emeritus George Washington University Law School 2000 H St., NW Washington, DC 20052 (202)994-7053 Co-author (with Professor Robert Tuttle) of "Secular Government, Religious People" ( Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 2014)) My SSRN papers are here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
