Maryland Senate votes to overturn after Labor Day school start

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
So, you seem hung up on speed limits. Let's talk about those.

Governments build most roads. They are engineered to be driven at given speeds. They are given an allowance for entry from driveways and other roads and other accesses based on government allowance, and that is all taken into consideration when establishing a limit on the speed one may drive. The ability of a driver (tested to be safe to drive on the roads by the government) to drive on the roads (established primarily by the government) in vehicles (of specific safety standards established by the government) is also taken into account.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for the state, per the tenth amendment to the constitution, to establish limits on speed on a given road.

The location of my given child (not yours, not a politicians, not the guy down the street) is my responsibility and not the government's. There is no reasonable justification for the government to establish where my child should be. To PROTECT the child from actual danger, there's good reason for an adjudicated, challengeable-by-due process reason for the government to say where my child should NOT be, but "anywhere but school" is not a reasonable place my child should NOT be.

The base assumption that the government can establish where my children should be is that the government knows best, and has ultimate authority. This is antithetical to the US Constitution and founding principles of this nation.

In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states’ right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ right to “interpose” between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term “nullification” – the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws.

As such, it is equally reasonable to say that the people, per the tenth, also have the right to nullify state authority where it does not and should not exist.
It is your responsibility to ensure that they receive an education that is approved, how you do so is your choice, however if you choose to use the available public education those are the rules for using the public education system.

You can choose to home school or have the tutored if you wish to deviate too much from the norm.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It is your responsibility to ensure that they receive an education that is approved, how you do so is your choice, however if you choose to use the available public education those are the rules for using the public education system.

You can choose to home school or have the tutored if you wish to deviate too much from the norm.
Golly, thanks.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

It is your responsibility to ensure that they receive an education that is approved, how you do so is your choice, however if you choose to use the available public education those are the rules for using the public education system. You can choose to home school or have the tutored if you wish to deviate too much from the norm.
Ha ha. Approved by the State. What a joke. As long a person can pass a GED, that's all that matters.

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now this is not solely a reservation of rights only to the States, but applies as well as to the people, separately.
How many of you blindly follow laws, and are apologists for same, that had no say in them because they are say, over 20, 30, 40, 50 years old or more. You didn't consent to them. Even laws today made recently thrust down our throats without our consent. [Don't argue about traffic safety or other common sense laws that affect life and property, that includes the Right to Bear Arms]. A parent can withdrawal consent at anytime when it comes to their child being subject to public school doctrine. As well as to reinstate it at anytime with exceptions if warranted. This is the uniqueness of free people. Telling the State to shove it by exercising their natural rights. I sure as hell never gave the State permission to lord over me and my children. And they don't. One caveat. I do let them think they do else I'd most likely be tying this from prison. It's a pick your battle kind of thing. I've got shallow pockets and the State's are deeeeeeeeep.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
If I may ...



Ha ha. Approved by the State. What a joke. As long a person can pass a GED, that's all that matters.

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Now this is not solely a reservation of rights only to the States, but applies as well as to the people, separately.
How many of you blindly follow laws, and are apologists for same, that had no say in them because they are say, over 20, 30, 40, 50 years old or more. You didn't consent to them. Even laws today made recently thrust down our throats without our consent. [Don't argue about traffic safety or other common sense laws that affect life and property, that includes the Right to Bear Arms]. A parent can withdrawal consent at anytime when it comes to their child being subject to public school doctrine. As well as to reinstate it at anytime with exceptions if warranted. This is the uniqueness of free people. Telling the State to shove it by exercising their natural rights. I sure as hell never gave the State permission to lord over me and my children. And they don't. One caveat. I do let them think they do else I'd most likely be tying this from prison. It's a pick your battle kind of thing. I've got shallow pockets and the State's are deeeeeeeeep.

Some of you people are quite nuts. I am not talking about them throwing you in jail for keeping you kid out of school for a month, I am talking about them not passing your kid for not being there, that is well within their right.

Or are you one of those parents that insist that you kid be given an A because you know they are an A student?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
You realize you're actively rooting for localities to lose their freedom to choose their own school calendar? You rail against too much govt. and yet want more of it.
So you don't mind local Governments doing whatever they feel like you just don't want state governments in charge.

Whats the difference which Government does it? Government is Government, tell you what , Lets have a freaking referendum.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Some of you people are quite nuts. I am not talking about them throwing you in jail for keeping you kid out of school for a month, I am talking about them not passing your kid for not being there, that is well within their right.
That's very different. As I stated, making up the assignments and passing the courses (through actual work) was a "given" in my scenario.

I'm simply saying "lawful attendance" is BS, because where my child is happens to be my responsibility and not the state's. It is not illegal to keep my kid out of school - and, if it is, that's a law I would challenge.

To gain the grade, the work must be done. But, don't tell me when I can and can not take my kid out of school
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
That's very different. As I stated, making up the assignments and passing the courses (through actual work) was a "given" in my scenario.

I'm simply saying "lawful attendance" is BS, because where my child is happens to be my responsibility and not the state's. It is not illegal to keep my kid out of school - and, if it is, that's a law I would challenge.

To gain the grade, the work must be done. But, don't tell me when I can and can not take my kid out of school
So your kid does not have anything that participation is part of the class?

When I was in band I remember kids bellyaching that they wouldn't get an A in band because they missed practices and performances, that was the reason for being there.

As an engineer I see too many "shut ins" that don't want to participate and interact with other people as it is.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
So your kid does not have anything that participation is part of the class?

When I was in band I remember kids bellyaching that they wouldn't get an A in band because they missed practices and performances, that was the reason for being there.

As an engineer I see too many "shut ins" that don't want to participate and interact with other people as it is.
Not my point at all. My point is that the state cannot tell me my kid has to be there. It is not "unlawful" for my kid to not be there.

Some schools provide a worse education for a kid by being there than not, because they do a piss-poor job at best. Some schools are outstanding and a parent would be foolish to not ensure their child is there as much as the school is open. None of this has a darned thing to do with my point.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Not my point at all. My point is that the state cannot tell me my kid has to be there. It is not "unlawful" for my kid to not be there.

Some schools provide a worse education for a kid by being there than not, because they do a piss-poor job at best. Some schools are outstanding and a parent would be foolish to not ensure their child is there as much as the school is open. None of this has a darned thing to do with my point.
Are you saying that unexcused absences are actually unlawful in Maryland?

Have the police come to your door for taking your kid on vacation?
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
So you don't mind local Governments doing whatever they feel like you just don't want state governments in charge.

Whats the difference which Government does it? Government is Government, tell you what , Lets have a freaking referendum.
It's not "whatever they feel like", is a local school board setting the schedule for their students. Parents are more than able to comment, on record, about it.
 

awpitt

Main Streeter
So, you seem hung up on speed limits. Let's talk about those.

Governments build most roads. They are engineered to be driven at given speeds. They are given an allowance for entry from driveways and other roads and other accesses based on government allowance, and that is all taken into consideration when establishing a limit on the speed one may drive. The ability of a driver (tested to be safe to drive on the roads by the government) to drive on the roads (established primarily by the government) in vehicles (of specific safety standards established by the government) is also taken into account.

Thus, it is perfectly reasonable for the state, per the tenth amendment to the constitution, to establish limits on speed on a given road.

The location of my given child (not yours, not a politicians, not the guy down the street) is my responsibility and not the government's. There is no reasonable justification for the government to establish where my child should be. To PROTECT the child from actual danger, there's good reason for an adjudicated, challengeable-by-due process reason for the government to say where my child should NOT be, but "anywhere but school" is not a reasonable place my child should NOT be.

The base assumption that the government can establish where my children should be is that the government knows best, and has ultimate authority. This is antithetical to the US Constitution and founding principles of this nation.

In 1798, the legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky approved resolutions that affirmed the states’ right to resist federal encroachments on their powers. If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the resolutions’ authors (James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power. The Virginia Resolutions spoke of the states’ right to “interpose” between the federal government and the people of the state; the Kentucky Resolutions (in a 1799 follow-up to the original resolutions) used the term “nullification” – the states, they said, could nullify unconstitutional federal laws.

As such, it is equally reasonable to say that the people, per the tenth, also have the right to nullify state authority where it does not and should not exist.
There is no more ability to nullify a mandatory school attendance LAW than there is an ability to nullify a speed limit LAW. The law says that kids must attend school. The law says that drivers must obey the speed limit. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understanding that simple concept. You can keep your kids wherever you want, whenever you want; however, if they do not attend school in accordance with the law, there are consequences that you and your kids will face.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Are you saying that unexcused absences are actually unlawful in Maryland?

Have the police come to your door for taking your kid on vacation?
I'm saying that if there is a law that says a parent's note, regardless of reason, is not sufficient to call an absence "excused", that's a problem.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I'm saying that if there is a law that says a parent's note, regardless of reason, is not sufficient to call an absence "excused", that's a problem.
It's state law.

Students presently enrolled in public schools are considered lawfully absent from school, including absence for any portion of the day, only under the following conditions:

A. Death in the immediate family. The local school system shall determine what relationships constitute the immediate family.

B. Illness of the student. The principal or a pupil personnel worker shall require a physician's certificate from the parent or guardians of a student reported continuously absent for illness.

C. Court summons.

D. Hazardous weather conditions. Hazardous weather conditions shall be interpreted to mean weather conditions which would endanger the health or safety of the student when in transit to and from school.

E. Work approved or sponsored by the school, the local school system, or the State Department of Education, accepted by the local superintendent of schools or the school principal, or their designees as reason for excusing the students.

F. Observance of a religious holiday.

G. State emergency.

H. Suspension.

I. Lack of authorized transportation. This does not include students denied authorized transportation for disciplinary reasons.

J. Other emergency or set of circumstances which, in the judgment of the superintendent or designee, constitutes a good and sufficient cause for absence from school.

Anything outside of those is considered unlawful and added up unlawful absesnces can lead to other issues.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
It's state law.



Anything outside of those is considered unlawful and added up unlawful absesnces can lead to other issues.
This is where my problem is. A - that you believe that is acceptable,
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
It's not "whatever they feel like", is a local school board setting the schedule for their students. Parents are more than able to comment, on record, about it.
Have you ever attended a school board meeting? I have.
They allow you to comment , but the decisions are made long before you show up.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
This is where my problem is. A - that you believe that is acceptable,
Where did I say that?

Why is this thread full of people who apparently read minds (and are not good at it)? Awpitt and I have done nothing but post the factual information surrounding this bill/action.

I'm really not quite sure why it's being construed as it being acceptable to me, but it happens all over the place on this forum.

Your post said "if its a law". And I simple said "It's a state law".
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
When I was in band I remember kids bellyaching that they wouldn't get an A in band because they missed practices and performances, that was the reason for being there.
LOL - that's one of the better "excuses" I've ever heard.
BTW, they may want to tell their kids that not showing up for class, non-participation, is often part of a college course requirement.
Formal tests, quizes were only part of your grade. In several classes you had to present. In science classes you had to participate in the labs in order to complete the lab reports (which were graded).
It was part of the overall learning process, not just the technical data you could memorize, but the procedures and process required for doing legitmate science experiments. Probably more important than just the formulas and theory.
 

BernieP

Resident PIA
The executive order was probably more bi-partisan than the GA vote to overturn the order.
Franchot is not known for whimsical ideas. Seems to be a straight shooter when it comes to the taxpayers money.
 
Top