there's a difference between accuracy and nitpicking so as not to be incorrect...

I go for accuracy. I don't about trying to sound smarter or virtue signaling to a tribe.

there's a difference between accuracy and nitpicking so as not to be incorrect...

accuracy is consistency

You didn't answer the question so I'll help.

Parental rights would fall under the vague category of the 9th amendment.  Court cases have also argued that this also falls under the 14th amendment when trying to take someone's child away without "due process". Oh snap, there's that phrase again "due process".

Parental rights is a myth, not an actual civil right.

Case in point: public agencies, including public schools, are intentionally refusing to notifiy a student's parents in cases of pregnancy, abortion, transgender affirming care, etc.

if parents had constitutionally protected rights, the government's agencies and schools could not interject themselves into the role of parent while keeping the actual parents or legal guardians uninformed.

accuracy is consistency

Not when consistency prevents goal post relocation.

Parental rights is a myth, not an actual civil right.

Case in point: public agencies, including public schools, are intentionally refusing to notifiy a student's parents in cases of pregnancy, abortion, transgender affirming care, etc.

if parents had constitutionally protected rights, the government's agencies and schools could not interject themselves into the role of parent while keeping the actual parents or legal guardians uninformed.

I wonder if this is what HRC meant when she said "it takes a village....."

Parental rights is a myth, not an actual civil right.

Case in point: public agencies, including public schools, are intentionally refusing to notifiy a student's parents in cases of pregnancy, abortion, transgender affirming care, etc.

if parents had constitutionally protected rights, the government's agencies and schools could not interject themselves into the role of parent while keeping the actual parents or legal guardians uninformed.

Parents rights aren't a black and white thing, it isn't all or nothing. Like most (all?) other rights, a line is drawn. Parents have neither zero rights nor do they have supreme rights.

I wonder if this is what HRC meant when she said "it takes a village....."

I think "it takes a village" is just to muddy the waters. By saying it takes a village (which is usually, but not always the case) they can justify more programs, more intervention.

Parents rights aren't a black and white thing, it isn't all or nothing. Like most (all?) other rights, a line is drawn. Parents have neither zero rights nor do they have supreme rights.

Got any facts to back up your BS?

Or just making it ujp as you go -- as usual?

Please educate us all on where that line exists, because i think you're just trolling again.

Got any facts to back up your BS?

Or just making it ujp as you go -- as usual?

Please educate us all on where that line exists, because i think you're just trolling again.

I figured common sense would answer that for you but here it goes.

You can't kill your child yet you also have rights over your child greater than any other member of the public.

Are you arguing to argue or do you really not see the false dichotomy in your claims?

You ask where the line exists, it depends on the issue, the jurisdiction, etc. It is not some clean universal line. It is an unenumerated right hence not one clearly drawn but inferred and created through case precedence.

I figured common sense would answer that for you but here it goes.

You can't kill your child yet you also have rights over your child greater than any other member of the public.

Are you arguing to argue or do you really not see the false dichotomy in your claims?

You ask where the line exists, it depends on the issue, the jurisdiction, etc. It is not some clean universal line. It is an unenumerated right hence not one clearly drawn but inferred and created through case precedence.

Common sense is not a legal concept.  Not to be confused with what a reasonable man might interpret the law to mean.  Different concepts.

I figured common sense would answer that for you but here it goes.

You can't kill your child yet you also have rights over your child greater than any other member of the public.

Are you arguing to argue or do you really not see the false dichotomy in your claims?

You ask where the line exists, it depends on the issue, the jurisdiction, etc. It is not some clean universal line. It is an unenumerated right hence not one clearly drawn but inferred and created through case precedence.

Didnt HI pass or try to pass an assisted suicide law? Im sure no child could sign any waiver, which means the parent would have to sign it, as well as 3 doctors. Thus "killing their child".

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I figured common sense would answer that for you but here it goes.

You can't kill your child yet you also have rights over your child greater than any other member of the public.

Are you arguing to argue or do you really not see the false dichotomy in your claims?

You ask where the line exists, it depends on the issue, the jurisdiction, etc. It is not some clean universal line. It is an unenumerated right hence not one clearly drawn but inferred and created through case precedence.

We aren't talking about rights of other "members of the public," but rights which government agencies do not recognize.

So, you're telling us parental rights exist, but there's no clearly defined right anywhere in the law.  Doesn't sound like a right -- more like an opinion based on assumptions.

You're no better than the libtards who claim everything they want from government is a right.

Healthcare
food
shelter
a guaranteed income without employment
student loan forgiveness
on-demand abortion without limits
climate change agenda items

and on and on.

Just because you believe a right exists doesn't make it so.  Unless the constitution or statutes protect said rights, you have no such legal rights.

As far as parental rights, those are enumerated in law not as rights, but as administrative guidelines.  You can make medical choices for your children or decide what religion they will be raised in.  Those are not rights as much as legal responsibilities and permitted choices in how to raise them.  First amendment covers the latter -- religion. 

You can't commit murder ... of anyone.  So your straw argument doesn't apply as a some kind of reverse parental right -- something a parent can't do. (We won't go into the millions of children killed by their mothers prior to birth.)

Instead of arguing, try understanding for a change.  You enjoying giving your 2 cents in every discussion, yet more often than not, you're just posting to feel involved.

Q pointed it out, why don't you claim he is making up bullcrap too?

From the dictionary:
Republic
a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

Democracy
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections


I stated we are a constitutional democratic republic. Do you disagree with that characterization?

What you stated was:

A republic is a form of democracy therefore it is a democracy. Being a subset of democracy doesn't mean we are no longer a democracy.

Yes, in extreme forms a democracy could create mob rule, but that is not inherent.

This is demonstrably false based on the FACTS I posted.

Why are you now trying to change your comment to argue about dictionary definitions and "a constitutional democratic republic"?  Do you always move goal posts, or is that a tactic you only use here?

Let me spell out why your comment is bullcrap.  A republic is a NOT a form of democracy therefore it is NOT a democracy.

Thus far you've not apologized for spewing that bullcrap, so stop whining that you're the only one having bullcrap called on you.

A republic is a representative form of government.  That's the ONLY part of your bullcrap you seem to understand.

HOW the representatives are selected MAY be through democratic elections, but in the VAST MAJORITY OF REPUBLICS, they are chosen through other means.

You seem to miss the point that the US government is not the only form a republic may take.  While ours has a couple of democratic features in that representatives and electors are voted on to represent the voters, that in no way makes our republic a democracy.  Far from it.  Electors are party loyalists who MAY cast electoral votes for the candidate that state's popular vote selected.  However, the 2016 election showed Hillary having more electors defect from her than any presidential candidate in the past century. 

Then there's the case that's happened more than once where the president elected is not the candidate with the most popular votes. 

both of those examples blow your theory out of the water that "a republic is a form of democracy".  You can't call what we have a democracy when the results defy the poplar vote.  It's inconsistent with the definition you posted.

Maybe you should go back and read your posts BEFORE submitting.  You might save yourself and the rest of us a whole lot of arguing.

We aren't talking about rights of other "members of the public," but rights which government agencies do not recognize.

So, you're telling us parental rights exist, but there's no clearly defined right anywhere in the law.  Doesn't sound like a right -- more like an opinion based on assumptions.

You're no better than the libtards who claim everything they want from government is a right.

Healthcare
food
shelter
a guaranteed income without employment
student loan forgiveness
on-demand abortion without limits
climate change agenda items

and on and on.

Just because you believe a right exists doesn't make it so.  Unless the constitution or statutes protect said rights, you have no such legal rights.

As far as parental rights, those are enumerated in law not as rights, but as administrative guidelines.  You can make medical choices for your children or decide what religion they will be raised in.  Those are not rights as much as legal responsibilities and permitted choices in how to raise them.  First amendment covers the latter -- religion. 

You can't commit murder ... of anyone.  So your straw argument doesn't apply as a some kind of reverse parental right -- something a parent can't do. (We won't go into the millions of children killed by their mothers prior to birth.)

Instead of arguing, try understanding for a change.  You enjoying giving your 2 cents in every discussion, yet more often than not, you're just posting to feel involved.

Are you making the case that there is no such thing as parental rights? If so you would be wrong, there are multiple legal cases recognizing this unenumerated right.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_interest/child_law/resources/child_law_practiceonline/child_law_practice/vol-35/february-2016/parental-rights-cases-to-know/#:~:text=Santosky%20is%20the%20first%20Supreme%20Court%20case%20to,court%20proceeding%2C%20they%20retain%20constitutionally%20protected%20parental%20rights.

If you want to split hairs by playing silly definition games where you toss out the whole concept of unenumerated rights just so you don't have to concede a point to me then you do you but your opinion isn't in line with reality.

What you stated was:

This is demonstrably false based on the FACTS opinion I posted.

Fixed it for you.

Fixed it for you.

As you post yet another opinion without offering a shred of supporting information.

 

As you post yet another opinion without offering a shred of supporting information.

 

Just like you?

Just like you?

i realize you have a short attention span.  Go back and try to read my comments again. 

Obviously you either skipped them or have no retention -- or comprehension.

I'm not going to repeat what I said just because you enjoy arguing and lying about me.

i realize you have a short attention span.  Go back and try to read my comments again. 

Obviously you either skipped them or have no retention -- or comprehension.

I'm not going to repeat what I said just because you enjoy arguing and lying about me.

You gave me an explanation of your opinion.

This is all a pointless dispute, even if a republic isn't a form of democracy as Q suggested, the USA is a democracy. It would be false to say we were not democratic just because we are a republic.

You gave me an explanation of your opinion.

This is all a pointless dispute, even if a republic isn't a form of democracy as Q suggested, the USA is a democracy. It would be false to say we were not democratic just because we are a republic.

Nobody said that except you just now.

A republic IS NOT a form of democracy.

I gave you documented facts.

Go back and read.

https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=53776.msg483408#msg483408

And quit moving goal posts.

A republic is a form of democracy therefore it is a democracy. Being a subset of democracy doesn't mean we are no longer a democracy.

Yes, in extreme forms a democracy could create mob rule, but that is not inherent.

IOW, you believe all republics are democracies (is a form of democracy).

I provided sourced information to the contrary.  Most republics on planet Earth who call themselves republics and which have been called republics based on historical fact have little to no democratic processes at all. 

Republics can, and do, exist even without democratic characteristics, processes or tendencies.

Therefore, it is not true that "a republic is a form of democracy," nor is it true that "it (a republic) is a democracy."  Both of your definitions are false, wrong and/or BS.

To repeat: you made that up.