PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

Monday, October 24, 2005

Tier I Status for military enlistment

This entry is in reply to a post in the Comments section below by Mr. Somerville of HSLDA. I am replying to this one personally because of the complete misunderstanding about objections to Section 10 of HR 3753/ S 1691.



Without trying to be sarcastic, because that's not how I'm writing, that is HSLDA's problem, not ours. You, the personnel of HSLDA, are going about the solution of a result of a conscious choice made by families from a bureaucratic entitlement standpoint rather than from the position of individual responsibility.

The guidelines in place for military recruitment that the people at HSLDA see as discriminatory are not aimed at homeschoolers. Those guidelines were in place before homeschooling became an issue for potential recruits and are there for the good of the service, which is the bottom line concerning all things military. Premature separations (discharges) are often made for the good of the service.

If people, usually parents in this case, make a decision of their own free will, they are responsible for the consequences of that decision. It is unfortunate that the implications of homeschooling regarding a military enlistment did not arise for some families until after it was too late to do anything about the schooling, but that is the nature of being a pioneer. You have difficulties, you work to overcome them. For those families the 15 semester hours of college are a do-able, and personally enriching, solution. We all have to make sacrifices to realize our dreams.

My opinion of gaining enlistment for homeschoolers is to give the families and kids the tools they need to acquire Tier I status, not to have the bureaucracy deign to include them. What the bureaucracy gives, the bureaucracy can take away. What you gain for yourself is yours.

HSLDA's critics?

This isn't about HSLDA, nor about criticising that organization. The criticism is leveled at what the organization is trying to do. Those are two separate things.

Since I'm the one who made the statement on the HSWatch list that the 15 hours of college credit would be a satisfactory workaround, I'll take this as me being the critic of HSLDA. And that ain't it. Neither do I counsel 'accepting' Tier II status.

My point is: I want the kids who join to be the best they can be.

Get it? I want what is best for the kids, and what is best for the military services, and for the people who will be depending on these recruits to be able to do what needs to be done.

These kids may be going off to face imminent danger, and I want them to have the best training they can possibly receive. I don't want them distracted by their background any more than is humanly possible during their training.

Now, by either attending a year of high school, or by acquiring the college credit hours (which some homeschooled kids do before they finish their homeschooling) the kids are better prepared. I want them to succeed on their own merits.

By accepting a Tier I status for a background whose preparation isn't optimal for military success, some of these kids are being sold a bill of goods, the results of which could follow them for the rest of their lives. An other-than-honorable discharge is permanent, it can dog someone's heels, consciously or subconsciously, and it is something about which a person will be reminded at each and every patriotic ceremony from now on. Upon seeing an American flag at Independence Day celebrations, I don't want adults-who-were-homeschooled to think, "I couldn't cut the military."

PDF-page 50 of CNA survey results: In general, results of other performance measures, such as initial paygrade, reason for separation, waiver status, type of discharge, and eligibility to reenlist, are consistent with the attrition findings. By most measures, both homeschooled and ChalleNGe recruits fail to match the performance of traditional high school graduates.

(I am not pleased at having to scour this document for citations of less-than-wonderful results concerning homeschooled kids. And no, to forestall objections about the survey document, the reason that the Navy misclassified some dropouts as homeschoolers doesn't hold up, because the survey team took them into consideration. Also, the Air Force misclassified recruits with Associate's degrees as homeschooled, which should have skewed the results in the opposite direction.)

CNA Survey, PDF page 44: During this period, the Navy’s recruiting policy on homeschooled enlistees was not well articulated, and many Navy recruits officially classified as homeschooled during FY99 actually held no credential. It appears that this problem was most severe between March and July 1999. When we exclude all Navy homeschooled recruits during this time period, the proportion of homeschoolers looks somewhat different (see figure 8). 23 Even with this exclusion, however, it appears that the recruitment of homeschoolers may have peaked in the Services by 2001.

CNA Survey, PDF-page 49: (Homeschooled recruits in the Air Force exhibit very low attrition rates when we measure attrition based on official educational credential, but we demonstrate that this is due to the tendency of the Air Force to classify recruits with Associate’s degrees as homeschooled.) [parentheses in original]

The Air Force's results underscores that the college experience improves the quality of service given, and experienced by, the recruits.

But back to involuntary separations, there is the process of those separations. Leaving the service before a term of enlistment is completed is not accomplished by a sergeant saying, "Gee whiz, I wish it could have worked out better for you," and then giving a hearty handshake and a slap on the back as the young person packs his or her suitcase. Leaving the service before a term of enlistment is completed is usually accompanied by some large event, whether physical so that the servicemember is medically retired, or perhaps psychological, so that the servicemember is counseled first by the immediate superior, and then by increasingly more distant people on up the chain, until there is no resolution other than discharge. The servicemember loses, the people who work with the servicemember lose, and a replacement has to be found.

And as for finding the replacements, they have to be groomed from scratch -- again. In the meantime, someone who has already done his or her bit, has to step in to fill the hole. There isn't a situation where the need goes unfilled for long, someone invariably is detailed to compensate for the loss. I would like to avoid that as much as possible.

Many homeschooled kids do succeed as enlisted members* of the military services, and three-serious-cheers for them. They must be of strong character, and great discipline, to be able make the adjustment from a family circumstance to a strongly bureaucratic circumstance. I was a weenie and cried for the first week of basic training, so I know how abrupt the transition is.

The numbers in the CNA survey, though, do not reflect that strength for many homeschool enlistees. And those are the kids who concern me. The kids of strong character and great discipline are going to make it, regardless of the barriers in their paths, but the others need strengthening first. It's only a kindness.

[* Tier I status applies to enlisting, not to commissioning as an officer. Officers must have a college degree, which erases any consideration of homeschooling from the discussion of who is or is not qualified.]

IT'S NOT ABOUT HSLDA. (yes, that was shouting)

That's not the way it works. Serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. People are disqualified all the time for differences in height, weight, physical problems about which they may not have known, or maybe mistakes when they were young. See AR 601-210, PDF pages 17 - 26. (Acrobat 6.0 or higher)

In my opinion, what your members want is immaterial, just as it was immaterial what I wanted before I qualified to enlist. The privilege of enlisting must be earned. What is important is not whether all who want to join are allowed to join, but whether the people who do join are the best people for the job.

It's not about HSLDA. It's about the members of a team whose job may take them into clear and present danger. It's about the cost to the government for all those who aren't optimally prepared. It's about the cost to the young people who don't make the cut.

In order to serve its members as best it can, HSLDA needs to be adult about what is involved and stop trying to gain special status for homeschooled kids just because they are homeschooled kids.

Valerie Bonham Moon
site owner: The Military Homeschooler

posted by Publius, 10:34 AM | link | 6 comments |

Friday, October 21, 2005

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

www.goarmy.com/hslda/

by Mary McCarthy

On September 13, 2005 Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) and Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) introduced the Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 (HoNDA) in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. (1)

H.R. 3753 and S. 1619 are almost identical to the previously introduced Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2003. Identical except for the addition of Section 10, "Recruitment and enlistment of home schooled students in the Armed Forces." (2).

Knowing that the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) is lobbying for passage of these proposals, it first appeared that they were simply trying to write themselves into law as the designated accountability organization for students wanting to prove their homeschool status for purposes of enlistment. HSLDA as a quasi-government accountability entity is troubling enough but could there be another reason?

The Washington Times reported in 2005 "HSLDA has been at the forefront of the battle to gain access for home-schoolers to the military, and HSLDA senior counsel Chris Klicka has been negotiating with the military for six years." (3)

In 1998, the Department of Defense began a study that included homeschool students to assess their fitness for enlistment. (4)

The results were published in 2004 and concluded homeschool recruits have attrition rates significantly higher than public high school graduates. (5)

The study ended in 2004 and homeschoolers reverted to a lesser status for enlistment. In January of 2005, following meetings between Chris Klicka and the Department of Defense, homeschoolers were again "afforded priority enlistment with no practical limit." (6)

In June 2005, however, Army Secretary Francis Harvey, interviewed by USA Today indicated, "Home-schooled students are a growing pool of potential recruits." (7)

An October 2005 release of a master plan for increasing Army recruitment includes targeting "those of high school age who are being homeschooled -- a potential market the Army has largely ignored." (8)

So why efforts to attract homeschooled students to the military when its been proven they are separated from the military at higher numbers than publicly educated students?

In his President's Report for 2003, Michael Farris, an ordained Baptist pastor (9), announced, "we were invited by the Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) to send our students for officer training. Placing our graduates on the path to leadership in the U.S. military is another way PHC can influence the nation." (10)

On December 18, 2003 PHC announced that students were eligible to enroll in the US Army's ROTC program. (11)

Why does HSLDA/PHC continue to champion HoNDA legislation and military involvement for students? They must know from the last introduction in 2003 that most homeschoolers are overwhelmingly against HoNDA and the federalization of homeschooling? And why have they added Section 10?


The Larger Picture

A Department of Defense investigation in 2004 determined that Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the Pentagon's senior military intelligence official, violated at least three internal regulations while speaking at 23 religious-oriented events beginning in January 2002 while in uniform. Speaking before crowds ranging from small groups to over 1000, General Boykin's remarks included a depiction of the war on terrorism as a battle against Satan; he stated "President Bush had been placed in his post by God;" and he said that "the U. S. military is recruiting a spiritual army (emphasis added) that will draw strength from a greater power to defeat its enemy." (12)

In September of 2004, General Boykin appeared on CBS's 60 Minutes in an attempt to repair his reputation, damaged by the disclosure of his speaking engagements. Interviewed by correspondent David Martin, Boykin defended his comments before a congregation in Dayton, Florida that, "my God was bigger than his [Allah]." According to the article, he further explained that "America's real enemy was not Osama bin Laden, but 'a guy called Satan.'" In a reference to captured Islamic militant Osman Atto, Boykin said, "I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol," which refers to Atto's "worship of corruption, of of power, of money." Martin noted, the "Secretary of the Army is expected to issue Boykin something called a 'letter of concern,' which amounts to a mild slap on the wrist." (13)

Prior to his speaking tour, Major General William G. Boykin had organized an event for Southern Baptist Pastors at Fort Bragg NC on April 22nd and 23rd, 2003. The event was promoted as part of the FAITH evangelism program of the Southern Baptist Convention's LifeWay Christian Resources. (14)

According to promotional materials mailed to pastors, "we must find a group of men who are warriors of FAITH, pastors who have the guts to lead this nation to Christ and revival!" The "Super FAITH Force Multiplier" materials also promised unprecedented access to the military base, including heavily secured areas, a Special Forces demonstration with live ammunition, and a visit to the "Shoot House" to learn how Special Forces attack the enemy inside buildings. After complaints from Americans United for Separation of Church and State regarding the appearance of the U. S. Military advancing a specific faith and religious mission, the event was scaled back. (15)

General Boykin was the keynote speaker at Patrick Henry College's Council for Statesmanship Banquet on March 29, 2004. (16)


Back to HoNDA

So is that the reason HSLDA is promoting the military recruitment and enlistment? "so these home schoolers can impact the military for Christ..."? (17)

If the homeschool recruits are at risk of not completing their enlistment, if they are not as qualified, yet are being targeted, what other conclusion is left? And -- perhaps most importantly -- with their increasingly close relationship with the Pentagon, will the membership information your family has entrusted to HSLDA be kept confidential?

HSLDA does seem to be recruiting for the Army -- http://www.goarmy.com/hslda/


(1) "Homeschool Non-discrimination Bill introduced in Congress" http://www.hslda.org/docs/media/200509/200509140.asp?printerFriendly=true
(2) http://thomas.loc.gov/
(3) "Military Levels Playing Field for Recruits," The Washington Times April 11, 2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/email.php?StoryID=20050410-110415-9831r (requires registration)
(4) Staff Sgt. Alicia K. Borlik, "DoD Evaluating Recruits with Alternative Diplomas." American Forces Information Service, February 1999. http://www.defenselink.mil/cgi-bin/dlprint.cgi http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb1999/n02011999_9902011.html
(5) Wenger & Hodari, Final Analysis of Evaluation of Homeschool and ChalleNGe Program Recruits, CNA, January 2004
http://www.cna.org/documents/D0009351.A2.pdf
(6) Army Opens Doors Wide for Homeschool Graduates http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200503/200503310.asp
(7) Dave Moniz, "Army recruiting up for June but still down for year," USA Today, June 29, 2005 http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-06-29-army-recruiting_x.htm
(8) Robert Burns, "Army has plan to boost signups in 2006," Associated Press, October 12, 2005 http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/12878466.htm
(9) http://phc.edu/administration/president/default.asp
(10) Patrick Henry College President's Report 2003 http://www.phc.edu/news/docs/200401160.pdf
(11) "ROTC Now an Option for PHC Students," Patrick Henry College press release December 18, 2003 http://www.phc.edu/news/docs/031218Media.asp
(12) R. Jeffrey Smith and Josh White, "General's Speeches Broke Rules," The Washington Post August 19, 2004, page A23 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14262-2004Aug19?language=printer
(13) "'Holy Warrior' General Takes to CBS to Repair Reputation," Americans United for Separation of Church and State, September 17, 2004 http://blog.au.org/2004/09/holy_warrior_ge.html
Also The Holy Warrior, CBS News, September 15, 2004 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643650.shtml
(14) Steve DeVane "Army says pastors' training at Fort Bragg meets regulations" North Carolina Biblical Recorder April 28, 2003 http://www.baptiststandard.com/2003/4_28/pages/army.html
(15) "U.S. Military support for Baptist Evangelism Program Draws Protest from Americans United" Americans United for Separation of Church and State, April 7, 2003. http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5114&abbr=pr&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1284
(16) 2004 Council for Statesmanship, The Trumpet of Liberty, Patrick Henry College. Vol. 4, No. 1, 6/2004. http://www.phc.edu/news/trumpet/2004_06/2004_06_06.asp
(17) "Military Recruitment of Home Schoolers Increasing," Home School Court Report, July/August 1999 http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/v15n4/v15n410.asp

Further reading:

"Army Offering More Benefits to Homeschool Graduates," HSLDA, October 19, 2005 http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/hslda/200510/200510190.asp

"General Seeks 'Satan' Speech Probe," CBS News, October 21, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/16/attack/main578471.shtml

Money for College & More Benefits Bonuses for Home School Graduates
http://www.goarmy.com/hslda


Thanks to Publius for the space to post this, and KY for the original breadcrumb trail that led me to question why HSLDA would be so interested in the military, and thanks to all my friends who helped.
posted by Publius, 1:47 PM | link | 2 comments |

HSLDA joins the Army?

HILL has linked to an article about an Army recruiting site that has an ad for HSDLA. How does that tie in with Section 10 of the proposed legislation?

From the HILL site:
--I have yet to see an answer as to why the HSLDA link is on a goarmy site.
posted by Publius, 8:44 AM | link | 2 comments |

Monday, October 17, 2005

Interesting Timing for This Military Blurb

From the HILL blog:

-- Army plan uses incentives to meet recruit goals

"Here's what caught my eye and was a bit surprising since homeschoolers are usually overlooked for so many issues.

• "Put more effort into recruiting people who have begun their college careers but not yet earned a degree, on the assumption that some would be interested in taking a hiatus to try military service. Also, target those of high school age who are being home schooled – a potential market the Army has largely ignored."
posted by Publius, 12:00 PM | link | 0 comments |

New NHELD Bulletin about HR 3753

Bulletin #44 HONDA Re-Introduced Examining Sections 1, 2 and 3 10/17/2005

NHELD is preparing a series of bulletins detailing, section by section, the exact language of HR3753/S1691, the "Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005" as proposed in the House and Senate. The bulletins will provide the exact language from the bill, along with the exact text of the existing federal law that the bill proposes to amend. The bulletins will also include NHELD's comments on those provisions.

NHELD is opposed to passage of any and all parts of this legislation. NHELD believes the entire bill should be killed and all previous federal laws already adopted having anything to do with the rights of parents to instruct their children at home should be repealed.

NHELD believes that there can be no compromises on any federal legislation regarding the rights of parents to instruct their children at home.

NHELD believes all federal legislation regarding the rights of parents to instruct their children at home, no matter how beneficial the legislation appears, is wholly unconstitutional, in violation of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and must be defeated and/or repealed immediately.

===================================================

Did you know that even the "Findings" section of HR3753/S1691 contains misleading and dangerous information?

For ease of reference and because the House and Senate bills are identical at this point in time, the House version will be excerpted in these bulletins.

The entire text of the bill can be found at:

House version

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3753:

Senate version

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1691:

The preliminary section of the bill is as follows:

Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005 (Introduced in House)

HR 3753 IH

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3753

To amend selected statutes to clarify existing Federal law as to the treatment of students privately educated at home under State law.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 13, 2005
Mrs. MUSGRAVE (for herself, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. AKIN, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CHOCOLA, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. FLAKE, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin, Mr. HAYES, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. HOSTETTLER, Mr. HYDE, Mr. INGLIS of South Carolina, Mr. ISTOOK, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. MCCAUL of Texas, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NORWOOD, Mr. NUSSLE, Mr. OTTER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PENCE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. PLATTS, Mr. RENZI, Mr. ROGERS of Alabama, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. TERRY, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. WAMP, and Mr. WOLF) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and in addition to the Committees on

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A BILL

To amend selected statutes to clarify existing Federal law as to the treatment of students privately educated at home under State law.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Home School Non-Discrimination Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:

(1) The right of parents to direct the education of their children is an established principle and precedent under the United States Constitution.

(2) Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, in exercising their legislative, executive, and judicial functions, respectively, have repeatedly affirmed the rights of parents.

(3) Education by parents at home has proven to be an effective means for young people to achieve success on standardized tests and to learn valuable socialization skills.

(4) Young people who have been educated at home are proving themselves to be competent citizens in postsecondary education and the workplace.

(5) The rise of private home education has contributed positively to the education of young people in the United States.

(6) Several laws, written before and during the rise of private home education, are in need of clarification as to their treatment of students who are privately educated at home pursuant to State law.

(7) The United States Constitution does not allow Federal control of homeschooling.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) private home education, pursuant to State law, is a positive contribution to the United States; and

(2) parents who choose this alternative education should be encouraged within the framework provided by the United States Constitution."

Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this bill do not purport to change any existing federal law. This is an introductory portion designed to give reasons for the necessity for adoption of the bill. Because these sections do not purport to amend any particular existing law, NHELD cannot reprint for a comparison any other federal law. In other bulletins regarding other sections of the bill, NHELD will be doing so. For now, NHELD will simply provide comment on this introductory section.

The purpose of the bill itself is objectionable.

"To amend selected statutes to clarify existing Federal law as to the treatment of students privately educated at home under State law."

Federal law does not need to be "clarified". The United States Constitution is abundantly clear in stating under the Tenth Amendment that the federal government has no delegated power to adopt any law regarding the education of children by their parents.

The Tenth 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."

The power to adopt laws affecting the right of parents to instruct their own children is not a power delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Therefore, that power is reserved to the States, or to the people. It cannot be clearer.

Any law, no matter how beneficial it may appear, that Congress adopts that affects the right of parents to instruct their own children or that affects the children who have been so instructed, is unconstitutional, should not be adopted, and if already adopted, should be repealed. It is just that simple.

The bill purports to clarify existing federal law as to "the treatment of students privately educated at home". If there is need to amend the "treatment of students", clearly, because that power is delegated to the states or to the people, the people in each state, if necessary, should seek amendment of their state laws.

Let's examine the Findings Section:

In the "Findings" section, it is stated that Congress has found that:

"(1) The right of parents to direct the education of their children is an established principle and precedent under the United States Constitution.

(2) Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, in exercising their legislative, executive, and judicial functions, respectively, have repeatedly affirmed the rights of parents."

While the words may sound appealing, don't be fooled by them.

The United States Constitution says absolutely nothing about the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. This is a "right" "found" by the U.S. Supreme Court, and other courts, in a few cases "interpreting" the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution also says absolutely nothing about the "right" of "privacy" itself. Again, this is a "right" "found" by the courts in the "penumbra", or "shadows" of the Constitution.

Congress and the President have absolutely no business in "exercising their legislative and executive functions" concerning the right of parents to instruct their own children because the U.S. Constitution does specifically say that Congress and the President can only exercise their authority when expressly granted a power by the U.S. Constitution. All other powers remain in the states and in the people.

Again, see the Tenth 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."

Why are we allowing Congress to get away with such misstatements? Each and every Congressman took an oath to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment is still part of the Constitution. Each and every one of the Congressmen who sponsored this bill should be reminded of their oath in no uncertain terms.

Also, the federal courts do not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate cases and controversies involving the instruction of children by parents because that power was not delegated to the federal judiciary. The instruction of children by parents is a power that remains in the states or in the people. The federal judiciary only has authority to resolve cases and controversies involving federal issues or federal law.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution reads in relevant part,
"The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between Citizens of different States, - [and] between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States."

Furthermore, Article III, Section 1, states that federal "Judges hold their Offices during good Behaviour."

That section gives the people yet another means by which they can demand that judges who are not applying the Constitution in their decisions may be removed from office by impeachment.

In other words, it is now and always has been improper and unconstitutional for cases and controversies involving the right of parents to instruct their children at home to be adjudicated in a federal court, no matter how beneficial the outcome of a case has been or will be. Cases and controversies about the right of parents to instruct their children at home and the rights of children who have been so instructed, when necessary, are more properly to be adjudicated in state courts based on state law.

The federal judiciary in reality has no jurisdiction to hear any case involving the instruction of children by parents.

We must stop pretending that the U.S. Constitution says things that it does not. We must shout out loudly and clearly to the federal judiciary to stop this pretending.

Let's continue on in this examination of the Findings section:

The findings further say "Congress has found that:

(3) Education by parents at home has proven to be an effective means for young people to achieve success on standardized tests and to learn valuable socialization skills.

(4) Young people who have been educated at home are proving themselves to be competent citizens in postsecondary education and the workplace.

(5) The rise of private home education has contributed positively to the education of young people in the United States."

If this bill is adopted, we will then have a "finding of Congress" that "Education by parents at home has proven to be an effective means for young people to achieve success on standardized tests and to learn valuable socialization skills." Constitutionally, Congress shouldn't be involved in making "findings" on this issue in the first place. If allowed to stand, however, Congress, at any time in the future, could make an alternative "finding" as an excuse to adopt still more federal laws. Furthermore, Congress, by this statement, is establishing a standard that "success on standardized tests" and "socialization skills" are to be achieved. Congress can then adopt a law specifying that "success" on certain federally "approved" "standardized tests" are to be achieved and that certain federally "approved" "socialization skills" are to be achieved.&n

Congress also is identifying the instruction of children by parents as "private home education". Instruction of children by parents currently is not considered to be "private education" in all states. Some states have no statutes defining "home education" at all. Amazingly enough, in some states parents are free to instruct as they please. Congress can adopt other laws that specify that only "private home education" contributes positively.

In addition, the phrase "The rise of private home education" is an anathema and should be denounced emphatically as an abomination and complete distortion of historical fact. Parents have been instructing their children at home since the beginning of time. The phenomenon did not suddenly "rise" in the twentieth century. Only the terminology given to the instruction of children by their parents has changed. The term, "home school" has "risen" in recent years. The only thing that has "risen" in modern times is the number of people who understand anew that this is their parental obligation and who are undertaking the obligation to instruct their own children.

The next of the Findings section of the bill which is absolutely objectionable is the Finding number 6 which states that

"6) Several laws, written before and during the rise of private home education, are in need of clarification as to their treatment of students who are privately educated at home pursuant to State law."

The phrase, "pursuant to State law" is also objectionable in that parents in certain states may be free to instruct their children at home without reference to any "state law" such that their "home education" may not need to be "pursuant to state law". It's called freedom.

The "rise of private home education" is objectionable for the reasons already cited. "Several laws, written before and during the rise.are in need of clarification" is objectionable precisely because parents always have had the legal authority and the obligation to instruct their own children. Federal laws have been silent on this issue precisely because the Congress has no delegated power to involve itself in making laws on this issue. Since the year 2000, Congress, wholly unconstitutionally, has taken upon itself the authority to adopt and amend laws involving the right of parents to instruct their children. The only "clarification" these "laws" need is to clarify that they are wholly unconstitutional and must be repealed.

The last section of this Findings portion of the bill claims Congress has found that:

"(7) The United States Constitution does not allow Federal control of homeschooling."

The finding that "The United States Constitution does not allow Federal control of homeschooling" implies that the Constitution allows federal authority of some kind over "homeschooling". Congress effectively has taken upon itself to deem that Congress does have the authority to adopt laws of some kind affecting "homeschooling", hence, the proposal of this bill and all of the other federal laws it has adopted or proposed since 2000. Congress, then, has determined that it does have the authority, albeit wholly unconstitutionally, to "regulate" "homeschooling". The difference between "control" and "regulation" is merely a nuance of semantics. In reality, "regulation" by the adoption of any federal law is "control".

Section 3 of this bill, the "sense of Congress", also is an abomination.

It reads: "It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) private home education, pursuant to State law, is a positive contribution to the United States; and (2) parents who choose this alternative education should be encouraged within the framework provided by the United States Constitution."

Again, only "private home education, pursuant to State law" is deemed to be a "positive contribution". In addition, the instruction of children by their parents is being termed an "alternative education", when in reality, it is and always has been the primary form of education. Public and private schools have been the "alternative" for parents who were unable or unwilling to undertake their obligation to instruct their own children.

The phrase "should be encouraged" is objectionable because the federal government should not be involving itself in any way with the instruction of children by parents.

The phrase, "within the framework provided by the United States Constitution" is the only phrase that is not objectionable but it is doubtful that Congress actually has in mind the Tenth Amendment when it makes this statement. If Congress truly followed the "framework provided by the United States Constitution" it would immediately repeal all existing federal laws adopted regarding "homeschooling" and withdraw this and all other proposed bills having to do with "homeschooling".

Attorney Deborah Stevenson - Executive Director of National Home Education Legal Defense. - www.nheld.com or email : info@nheld.com

Judy Aron - Director of Research, NHELD - imjfaron@sbcglobal.net
posted by Publius, 5:42 AM | link | 0 comments |

Saturday, October 15, 2005

TaNDA


This new policy by the Coast Guard appears to be unfair and discriminatory. The number of tattoos on a person, or the percentage of skin covered is immaterial concerning how well a person works or how well a person learns his or her job. Without documented rates of attrition, or evidence of other negative results of having tattoos, an informed opinion regarding tattoos cannot be made.

TaNDA legislation should be introduced into the houses of Congress to protect the rights of law-abiding tattoed citizens to enlist.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Tattooed Persons Non-Discrimination Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds as follows:
(1) The right of persons to have themselves tattooed is an established principle and precedent under the United States Constitution.
(2) Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court, in exercising their legislative, executive, and judicial functions, respectively, have repeatedly affirmed the rights of people to tattoo themselves.
(3) Tattooing performed in a certificated tattoo parlor is a right protected by the Bill of Rights.
(4) Persons who have been tattooed are proving themselves to be competent citizens in postsecondary education and the workplace.
(5) The rise of tatooing has contributed positively to the expression of freedom of speech of young people in the United States.
(6) The United States Constitution does not allow Federal control of tattooing.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) tattoing, pursuant to State law, is a positive contribution to free speech within the United States; and
(2) people who choose this form of free speech should be encouraged within the framework provided by the United States Constitution.

SEC. 4
RECRUITMENT AND ENLISTMENT OF TATTOOED PERSONS IN THE ARMED FORCES.
Tattooed Persons - Chapter 31 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 503 the following new section: Sec. 503b. Recruitment and enlistment of tattooed persons

(a) Policy on Recruitment and Enlistment- The Secretary concerned shall prescribe a policy for the recruitment and enlistment of tattooed persons. The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the polices prescribed under this section apply, to the extent practicable, uniformly across the armed forces

(b) Elements- The policy prescribed by the Secretary concerned under subsection
(a) shall include the following:
(1) Identification of qualified tattooed persons for purposes of recruitment and enlistment in the armed forces that is in accordance with the requirements described in subsection (c).
(2) Within the Department of Defense recruiting requirements, tattooed persons will be treated the same as untattooed persons, with no practical limit with regard to enlistment.
(3) An exemption of tattooed persons from any requirement for a percentage of untattooed skin as a precondition for enlistment in the armed forces.

(c) Qualified Tattooed Persons - In identifying a tattooed person for purposes of subsection (b), the Secretary concerned shall ensure that the person meets each of the following requirements:
(1) The person has taken the Armed Forces Qualification Test and scored at the 50th percentile or above.
(2) The person has provided the Secretary concerned with--
(A) a signed form from the tattoo parlor that conforms with the licensing requirements according to State law of the State where the tattoo was done;
or
(B) a certificate or diploma awarded to the tattoo artist from the American Tattooing Institute or other national tattoo certification provider.
(3) The tattooed person has provided the Secretary concerned with a photo of all tattoos on the person, which includes the tattoo date, and type of image
(4) The recruit has provided the Secretary concerned with a third-party verification letter of the tattoo parlor's certified status by the Tatto Artists Legal Defense Association or a State or county tattoo association or organization.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 503 the following new item: `503b. Recruitment and enlistment of tattooed persons.'


[Note: other than the October 15, 2005 news article, the above is a spoof. No tattooed people were harmed in the making of this spoof.]
posted by Publius, 8:01 AM | link | 0 comments |

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Ann Zeise is Covering HR 3753

Check it out under Points to Consider regarding the Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act.
posted by Publius, 5:33 AM | link | 0 comments |

Monday, October 10, 2005

Where the bills are, someone waits for me

(apologies for the Fogey Attack, but the mind just makes these odd connections)


Back to the business of the current status of the bills on this Monday morning:

HR 3753

Committee/Subcommittee:
Activity:
House Education and the Workforce
Referral, In Committee
House Ways and Means
Referral, In Committee
House Armed Services
Referral, In Committee

Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Referral


S. 1691

Committee/Subcommittee:
Activity:
Senate Finance
Referral, In Committee

Emailing or faxing the committee members will be a more direct route of making your opinion on these bills known rather than writing to legislators who aren't yet involved, unless, of course, your legislator is a co-sponsor of either of the bills.
posted by Publius, 7:36 AM | link | 0 comments |

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Payback

Servicemembers who don't complete a term of service may have to pay back any signing bonuses they got if they were Tier I recruits.
posted by Publius, 10:33 AM | link | 0 comments |

Friday, October 07, 2005

Battling for the heart and soul of home-schoolers

Some excerpts from a Salon article had been posted by HILL. Let's study the legislation and the history presented of HSLDA/NCHE. In particular, what are the possibilities if an organization such as HSLDA is allowed by federal mandate to verify homeschool status? What if a homeschooling family chooses to not join a state or county home-school association or organization? Why is HSLDA limiting the choices of homeschooling families by these requirements? And should an organization like HSLDA that requires such verification by writing this language into a bill also be allowed to profitably provide such? Would they verify all homeschoolers as approved?

From Section 10:
5) The graduate has provided the Secretary concerned with a third-party verification letter of the graduate's home-school status by the Home School Legal Defense Association or a State or county home-school association or organization.
From page 4 of the Salon article:
"They even asked group leaders to do home visits to make sure people were doing home schooling the 'right' way," Moyer says. Many who opted out of the groups launched the inclusive HERO support group network.
Read the rest of the article HERE.
posted by Publius, 12:54 PM | link | 0 comments |

Section 10 again

Two Section 10 comments are posted at Happy As Kings:

-- Federal Legislation Needed?
In reading the HR 3753/S 1691 blog, I've found another avenue: enlisting in the Reserves.

-- Those Picky Military Services
What we can do for homeschooling families who are looking at the military for their kids, is not to put homeschool-qualifiers in federal law, but rather educate them. The information as to what the services are looking for in terms of Tier I recruits applies to everyone, and can be distributed without wrinkling the fabric of federal law.
posted by Publius, 6:33 AM | link | 0 comments |

Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Speaking of same-old, same-old

On an email list a message-writer called the objections (and objectors) to the to the proposed homeschooling legislation contained in the House resolution 3753, and the Senate bill 1691, "same old, same old." It's hard to come up with something new when the proposed legislation is nearly identical with legislation proposed just two years ago.

Still, that Section 10. That's something new, isn't it?

No.

The Spring 2000 edition of the Massachusetts Home Learning Association (MHLA) newsletter, Snail Mail, carried an article in which the authors considered many of the same issues being discussed now, and a couple that haven't yet been considered. The concerns are nothing new.

-- Military Survey Re-ignites Fears of Legislation

Military Survey Re-ignites Fears of Legislation
Summary of the issue by Maggie Sadoway

When is New Legislation Worth the Risk?
Results of research into the issue by Nicky Hardenbergh (This article appeared in Snail Mail in an abridged version.)



So even with the 'new' section, we run into the "same old, same old" issues and concerns from five years ago.
posted by Publius, 1:10 PM | link | 1 comments |

Monday, October 03, 2005

Homeschooled kids are already priority candidates

In light of this memorandum from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, and dated last January, why is Section 10 of HR 3753/ S 1691 even needed for homeschooled kids to enlist as Tier Ones?

And this mention at About.com seems to say that DoD is replicating the five-year pilot program whose report was released in January 2004 -- although maybe "graudates" are something other than grads?

Tell me again why we need to enshrine homeschooling in federal law.
posted by Publius, 5:31 PM | link | 2 comments |

Sunday, October 02, 2005

[channeling Abba] Ring, ring! Why don't you give him a call!

See Inhofe's explanation of his support of S. 1691, then, give him a call.

HILL suggests calling Inhofe about his position:
-- Call Senator Inhofe's Office Monday :
"Here are Inhofe's phone numbers (from his website here. It's probably best if you're out-of-Oklahoma to call the D.C. office, but I left all the numbers here anyway. "

Click on over. We still don't mind.
posted by Publius, 8:04 PM | link | 1 comments |

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

House Armed Services Committee members

Republicans:

Akin, W. Todd MO
Bartlett, Roscoe, G. MD
Bradley, Jeb NH
Calvert, Ken CA
Conaway, Michael TX
Davis, Geoff KY
Davis, Jo Ann VA
Drake, Thelma VA
Everett, Terry AL
Forbes, J.Randy VA
Franks, Trent AZ
Gibbons, Jim NV
Hayes, Robin NC
Hefley, Joel, CO
Hostettler, John IN
Hunter, Duncan, CA Chairman
Jones, Walter B. NC
Kline, John MN
LoBiondo, Frank NJ
McKeon, Howard “Buck” CA
McMorris, Cathy WA
Miller, Candice MI
Miller, Jeff FL
Rogers, Mike AL
Ryan, Jim KS
Saxton, Jim NJ
Schwarz, Joe MI
Shuster, Bill PA
Simmons, Rob CT
Thornberry, Mac, TX
Turner, Michael OH
Weldon, Curt PA
Wilson, Joe SC

Democrats:

Abercrombie, Neil HI
Andrews, Robert NJ
Bordallo, Madeleine Guam
Boren Dan OK
Brady, Robert PA
Butterfield G.K. NC
Cooper, Jim TN
Davis, Susan A. CA
Evens, Lane IL
Israel, Steve, NY
Langevin, James R. RI
Larsen, Rick WA
Marshall, Jim GA
McIntyre, Mike NC
McKinney, Cynthia GA
Meehan, Marty MA
Meek, Kendrick FL
Ortiz, Soloman P. TX
Reyes, Silvestre TX
Ryan, Tim OH
Sanchez, Loretta CA
Skelton, Ike MO Ranking Member
Smith, Adam WA
Snyder, Vic AR
Spratt, Johm SC
Tauscher, Ellen CA
Taylor, Gene MS
Udall, Mark CO
posted by Publius, 3:43 PM | link | 0 comments |

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

House Ways & Means Committee members

Members of the 109th Congress
Bill Thomas, CA Chairman
E. Clay Shaw Jr. , FL
Nancy L. Johnson, CT
Wally Herger, CA
Jim McCrery, LA
Dave Camp, MI
Jim Ramstad, MN
Jim Nussle, IA
Sam Johnson, TX
Phil English, PA
J.D. Hayworth, AZ
Jerry Weller, IL
Kenny C. Hulshof, MO
Ron Lewis, KY
Mark Foley, FL
Kevin Brady, TX
Thomas M. Reynolds, NY
Paul Ryan, WI
Eric Cantor, VA
John Linder, GA
Bob Beauprez, CO
Melissa A. Hart, PA
Chris Chocola, IN
Devin Nunes, CA
Charles B. Rangel, NY
Fortney Pete Stark, CA
Sander M. Levin, MI
Benjamin L. Cardin, MD
Jim McDermott, WA
John Lewis, GA
Richard E. Neal, MA
Michael R. McNulty, NY
William J. Jefferson, LA
John S. Tanner, TN
Xavier Becerra, CA
Lloyd Doggett, TX
Earl Pomeroy, ND
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH
Mike Thompson, CA
John B. Larson, CT
Rahm Emanuel, IL


posted by Publius, 1:47 PM | link | 0 comments |

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

Full Committee Members and Jurisdiction
House Education and the Workforce Committee
109th Congress
(updated February 4, 2005)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John A. Boehner, Ohio, Chairman

Republican Members (27) Democrat Members (22)

Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
(Vice Chairman) George Miller, California
(Ranking Minority Member)
Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, California Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Michael N. Castle, Delaware Major R. Owens, New York
Sam Johnson, Texas Donald M. Payne, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey
Charlie Norwood, Georgia Robert C. Scott, Virginia
Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Lynn C. Woolsey, California
Judy Biggert, Illinois Rubén Hinojosa, Texas
Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania Carolyn McCarthy, New York
Patrick J. Tiberi, Ohio John F. Tierney, Massachusetts
Ric Keller, Florida Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio
Joe Wilson, South Carolina David Wu, Oregon
Jon C. Porter, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
John Kline, Minnesota Susan A. Davis, California
Marilyn N. Musgrave, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Bob Inglis, South Carolina Danny K. Davis, Illinois
Cathy McMorris, Washington Raúl M. Grijalva, Arizona
Kenny Marchant, Texas Chris Van Hollen, Maryland
Tom Price, Georgia Tim Ryan, Ohio
Luis G. Fortuño, Puerto Rico Timothy H. Bishop, New York
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana John Barrow, Georgia
Charles W. Boustany, Jr., Louisiana
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Thelma D. Drake, Virginia
John R. "Randy" Kuhl, Jr., New York
posted by Publius, 1:46 PM | link | 0 comments |

HR 3753/ S 1691-Homeschool NonDiscrimination Act 2005

As of October 2, there are now 63 Co-sponsors. Note that none have been removed, which makes it more important if one of these Representatives is representing you and you do not support this legislation. Let's see if we can get some of these names moved to the 'removed' column!

Rep Aderholt, Robert B. [AL-4] -
9/13/2005 Rep Akin, W. Todd [MO-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Beauprez, Bob [CO-7] - 9/22/2005
Rep Bishop, Rob [UT-1] - 9/14/2005
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] - 9/13/2005
Rep Boehner, John A. [OH-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 9/13/2005
Rep Burton, Dan [IN-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Chocola, Chris [IN-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Davis, Jo Ann [VA-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Doolittle, John T. [CA-4] - 9/13/2005
Rep Feeney, Tom [FL-24] - 9/13/2005
Rep Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] - 9/22/2005
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] - 9/13/2005
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Green, Mark [WI-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hayes, Robin [NC-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hayworth, J. D. [AZ-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Herger, Wally [CA-2] - 9/14/2005
Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hostettler, John N. [IN-8] - 9/13/2005
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Inglis, Bob [SC-4] - 9/13/2005
Rep Istook, Ernest J., Jr. [OK-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Kennedy, Mark R. [MN-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep King, Steve [IA-5] - 9/13/2005
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] - 9/14/2005
Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18] - 9/13/2005
Rep Lewis, Ron [KY-2] - 9/14/2005
Rep Marchant, Kenny [TX-24] - 9/22/2005
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] - 9/13/2005
Rep McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] - 9/13/2005
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Myrick, Sue [NC-9] - 9/13/2005
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 9/14/2005
Rep Ney, Robert W. [OH-18] - 9/22/2005
Rep Norwood, Charlie [GA-9] - 9/13/2005
Rep Nussle, Jim [IA-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Otter, C. L. (Butch) [ID-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] - 9/13/2005
Rep Pence, Mike [IN-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 9/13/2005
Rep Platts, Todd Russell [PA-19] - 9/13/2005
Rep Renzi, Rick [AZ-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Ryun, Jim [KS-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] - 9/13/2005
Rep Simpson, Michael K. [ID-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Souder, Mark E. [IN-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] - 9/13/2005
Rep Tancredo, Thomas G. [CO-6] - 9/13/2005
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] - 9/13/2005
Rep Tiahrt, Todd [KS-4] - 9/13/2005
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] - 9/14/2005
Rep Wamp, Zach [TN-3] - 9/13/2005
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 9/13/2005

posted by Publius, 1:41 PM | link | 0 comments |