Woah! Before bashing and mindlessly reinforcing each other's libertarian ideals, let's all back up and Google the background one second. (don't get me wrong: I'

Woah! Before bashing and mindlessly reinforcing each other's libertarian ideals, let's all back up and Google the background one second. (don't get me wrong: I'm a big proponent of home schooling, I'll probably be home schooling my kids (probably while teaching in public schools at the time (go figure))) Original ruling: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B192878.PDF Alternate explanation of original ruling: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/257230.php#257230 http://ace.mu.nu/archives/257230.php#257230 The "money quote", as someone called it, is cited, and that's how law works - it repeats precedent. If you follow the precedent, it doesn't end in '61. The '61 case cites a 1938 case, which says: "The legislature has conferred upon school boards broad plenary powers to make all reasonable regulations that will in the reasonable exercise of judgment promote the efficiency of the school system in performing public welfare duties, which are limited not merely to the development of the mind in academic fields, but the sphere of which is much broader and extends to those subjects which will tend to [12 Cal.2d 92] develop and quicken the civic conscience in ways of attachment for home and country." See here: http://www.claralaw.cpda.org/om_isapi.dll?infobase=cases2.nfo&jump=12%20Cal.2d%2092&softpage=Document_Case http://www.claralaw.cpda.org/om_isapi.dll?infobase=cases2.nf... That was written in 1938. And see that "12 Cal.2d 92"? That's a citation to a yet earlier case. In other words this idea has been around for almost a century, and there is nothing new or newly-frightening about it. It was cited because the incompetent defense had a really backwards argument about what was going on at home. Legal action came around when one of the eight children reported "physical and emotional mistreatment". SFGate only reported the last word. So here's my take on what happened: libertarian think tank intern scans legal briefs for quotes he can write a story around to rile people up. They find a resolution with a quote that uses scary 60's cold-war language to describe an idea that's been around for at least 80 years. Voila! That's our reality-hook! The rest is already in people's minds, so they won't double check it... now let's just write the story to reinforce the ideas we are promoting. There's always lazy journalists who will publish a paper around this, and controversy will only bring more readers to the paper, so who cares if it's true, as long as it "riles people up"? Lew Rockwell jumps all over it, of course: http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut52.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/greenhut/greenhut52.html That's it! They're taking away our guns! To arms! To arms! Oh no! They're going to ban abortions everywhere! Oh dear! They're going to take away our children for indoctrination! Don't get me wrong, I completely support Roe v. Wade, but I think it's despicable how those who support it have no idea why people oppose it.