A concurring opinion published in a case decided recently by the Georgia Court of Appeals asserts that parents have a constitutionally protected right to homeschool their children.

In his concurring opinion in the child-custody case of Borgers v. Borgers, Judge Stephen Dillard, chief judge of the Georgia Court of Appeals, delivered an impassioned and erudite defense of absolute parental sovereignty over their children’s training.

“The liberty interest of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is the most ancient of the fundamental rights we hold as a people,” Judge Dillard declared.

Dillard’s concurrence continued in an equally compelling tone:

This cherished right derives from the natural order, preexists government, and may not be interfered with by the State except in the most compelling circumstances. And while I agree with the majority that the trial court lacked the authority to alter the parties’ custody agreement in this contempt action, I write separately to express my serious concerns with the court’s decision to summarily substitute its judgment regarding the child’s education for the mother’s without identifying evidence of the compelling circumstances necessary to interfere with her constitutional parental rights. In doing so, the trial court failed to give sufficient consideration to the federal and Georgia constitutions, both of which afford significant protection of a parent’s right to the care, custody, and control of his or her child — which undoubtedly includes the right to make educational decisions, of course, at the end they will decide if they want to pursue a JCU Bachelor of Science or not.

Curiously, there are those in the conservative community who, although agreeing with Dillard’s reasoning on policy grounds, refuse to recognize any constitutional protection for parents’ educational prerogative.

Legal expert and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh penned a blog post on October 23 publicizing Judge Dillard’s opinion. In commenting on the concurrence, Volokh vaguely shared his own opinion on the legal status of parents who homeschool.

“I personally think that defining the scope of parental rights is a complicated matter, and while I support the right to homeschool on policy grounds, I’m not positive that it should be recognized as a constitutional right,” Volokh explains.

Not that it matters in the context of constitutional rights, but a Supreme Court decision handed down in 1925 is similarly difficult to define.

In the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, the Supreme Court held:

No question is raised concerning the power of the state reasonably to regulate all schools, to inspect, supervise and examine them, their teachers and pupils; to require that all children of proper age attend some school, that teachers shall be of good moral character and patriotic disposition, that certain studies plainly essential to good citizenship must be taught, and that nothing be taught which is manifestly inimical to the public welfare.

Notice that the Court doesn’t presume to protect the right of parents to control their children’s education, so they can take free courses for example security courses Brisbane, first aid among others. The justices, in fact, make a judicial grant of authority to “the state” to “reasonably regulate all schools.” That would include, one assumes, schools that are conducted at home, rather than at a designated school building.

Some states exercise this presumed power by treating homeschooling parents as if they were state employees, as are public- and charter-school teachers. Not only do parents not get paid from the state coffers, but parents have their paychecks raided by the state so those coffers are full enough to fully fund the salaries of scores of teachers.

Among many homeschool families and advocates, the lack of a constitutionally protected right to school choice is a hole in the Constitution that needs to be filled with an amendment.

Pointing to a statement made in November 2015 at an event at Georgetown University by the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that the right to homeschool is “simply not in the Constitution,” former director of federal relations for the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) William Estrada warned homeschool families that “we do indeed need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that enshrines the current Supreme Court precedent protecting parental rights in the black-and-white text of the U.S. Constitution.”

A correct understanding of the Constitution — its history, structure, and federal function — would reveal that the right of parents to homeschool their children should NOT be guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Constitution was created by the states to carry out a “few and defined” delegated powers, while the states would retain “numerous and indefinite” powers. The federal authority would extend only to “external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.”

The 10th Amendment explicitly excludes the federal government from functioning in any area not placed within its purview by the states in the Constitution.

Notwithstanding these straightforward tenets of constitutional construction, there is no denying that the national authority has repeatedly attempted to break down the boundaries placed by the Constitution around its power. From the beginning, our elected representatives have overstepped the limits drawn around their rightful authority and have passed laws retracting, reversing, and redefining the scope of American liberty and state sovereignty, and those efforts have invaded the formerly sacrosanct precinct of the family home.

Americans determined to exercise unqualified control of their children’s education (and every other aspect of their lives) have a sacred duty to tirelessly resist such advances and exercise all our natural rights to restrain government and keep it within the limits set by the Constitution.

So, Scalia was right: There is no constitutional right to homeschool. That isn’t because parents don’t have that right, but because the U.S. Constitution was not designed to define the limits of our rights, but to define the limits of the power of the federal government.

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article was originally published at The New American Magazine and reposted here with permission from the author.


Concordia res parvae crescunt


Small things grow great by concord...

Tenth Amendment Center


"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."


FOLLOW US

Get in Touch

13 + 10 =


MAIL:
PO BOX 13458
Los Angeles, CA 90013


PHONE:
213.935.0553

The 10th Amendment

“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.”

LEARN MORE

01

Featured Articles

On the Constitution, history, the founders, and analysis of current events.

featured articles

02

Tenther Blog and News

Nullification news, quick takes, history, interviews, podcasts and much more.

tenther blog

03

State of the Nullification Movement

108 pages. History, constitutionality, and application today.

get the report

01

Path to Liberty

Our flagship podcast. Michael Boldin on the constitution, history, and strategy for liberty today

path to liberty

02

maharrey minute

The title says it all. Mike Maharrey with a 1 minute take on issues under a 10th Amendment lens.

maharrey minute

Tenther Essentials

2-4 minute videos on key Constitutional issues – history, and application today

TENTHER ESSENTIALS

Join TAC, Support Liberty!

Nothing helps us get the job done more than the financial support of our members, from just $2/month!

JOIN TAC

01

The 10th Amendment

History, meaning, and purpose – the “Foundation of the Constitution.”

10th Amendment

03

Nullification

Get an overview of the principles, background, and application in history – and today.

nullification