6 ms·

You might be a lawyer but there is no "Constitutional right to free and appropriate education." Public schools in states accepting federal monies are obligated

You might be a lawyer but there is no "Constitutional right to free and appropriate education." Public schools in states accepting federal monies are obligated to provide services to disabled students because of laws like EAHCA and IDEA, not the US Constitution.

dredmorbius 13y ago
there is no "Constitutional right to free and appropriate education." There is in Florida: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A9 http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A9 "Constitutional" need not refer exclusively to the US Constitution.
- rquantz 13y ago
  Likewise, just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean it is not a constitutional right under the federal constitution.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    If you're going to pursue that argument, you'll have to point to construction, gloss, precedent, stare decisis, etc. You don't just get to make crap up. Edit: The parallel comment here actually does note that unenumerated rights can and do exist: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6842667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6842667
    - will_brown 13y ago
      Just for example, the right to an attorney in a criminal case...that is not enumerated in the Constitution but comes from case law, Gideon v. Wainwright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright), interpreting the 14th Amendment. (Although a Constitutional Right there is additional case law that carves out certain criminal cases where an indigent would not be entitled to an attorney). Or how about Brown v. Board, you can read the Constitution all day and not find a single thing about the Constitutionality of de jure racial segregation in schools, yet when you read the case law that interprets the 14th Amendment, you will find in Brown 9-0 the Justices held such laws are Unconsitutional and violate the 14th Amendment. Further, it was just a few years earlier SCOTUS held separate but equal did not violate the 14th Amendment. So put less stock into the plain reading of the Constitution and more into the interpretation, which historically has been subject to change.
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        You're demonstrating my point. Contruction is used to derive a right to representation under the equal protection doctrine of the 14th amendment. Similarly in Brown. There's a huge amount of Constitutionality (US) which derives from the Commerce Clause: "Congress shall have the power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". That's 21 words with a tremendous impact.
        will_brown 13y ago
        Unless I misinterpreted your first comment, I made the opposite point. Someone stated there are Constitutional rights outside those enumerated in the Constitution, you asked for some support, specifically saying "you don't just get to make that crap up." So I gave 2 obvious specific examples of Constitutional Rights not enumerated in the Constitution. As far as the Commerce Clause that is not a Right but a Power, but again it supports the same point...just because the Constitution does not enumerate a power to the Gov does not mean the Gov does not have that Constitutional Power. The Commerce Clause is a good example, maybe the most obvious is Marbury v. Madison where the SCOTUS gives itself the right to Judicial Review.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        There's advocating a right out of thin air, and there's constructing a right out of existing doctrine: the Constitution, statute, court cases, "gloss" (prior court interpretation of all of the above). See: legal construction: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Construction http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Construction Gloss is somewhat more ambiguously defined: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gloss http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gloss And I absolutely agree with you on Marbury v. Madison. That established the precedent of the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review and rule on constitutionality, which wasn't itself an enumerated power of the court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison However, neither Construction nor Marbury give the court sui generis powers -- at least not usually, nor without a great deal of discomfit. I seem to recall a case (Learned Hand? Oliver Wendell Holmes?) where some pretty broad leaps were made.
    - ctdonath 13y ago
      Some of the Founding Fathers specifically opposed enacting a Bill Of Rights because lack of enumeration might be construed as not being a right, distracting from the main point that the government is not empowered to limit that which, tautologically, it is not empowered to limit. In http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm Alexander Hamilton contends that a BoR is pointless in that the Constitution strictly delineates the limits of governmental power, and anything not within those limits is by practical definition a Constitutional right insofar as the government has no delegated power to limit it.
      - bnolsen 13y ago
        So what you are saying is that the bill of rights itself lays out a recipe which tells polticians what to start regulating and limiting to get themselves more power to turn the US into a tyrrany. The excuse is that since it's in the constitution the government can regulate it, even though it it stated otherwise.
        ctdonath 13y ago
        What I'm saying is that they Founding Fathers feared the BoR would be construed as being such a recipe when it plainly was not intended that way. Willful abuse of logical fallacies is common, needing only a pretext to build them on. The BoR was intended as an emphasis of what was not allowed, addressing key concerns; alas, the malicious point at it and contend that because it does not include every right to the point of encyclopedic completeness, anything not covered must not have been intended - which is obviously absurd, yet proves persuasive to the easily confused.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Likewise, just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean it is not a constitutional right under the federal constitution. Or, to put it in the words of the Constitution itself, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The idea that enumeration of rights would serve as limitations on fundamental rights under the Constitution to those expressly enumerated was a concern with the whole idea of a Bill of Rights that the Ninth Amendment was adopted to resolve.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      I tend to cringe whenever someone invokes the 9th amendment, because it's always used to justify "rights" that whoever is invoking it completely made up. All the 9th amendment says is that the Bill of Rights is a non-exhaustive enumeration. Invoking it is appropriate when someone says: "there is no right to X because it's not in the Constitution." However, it does not help you bootstrap a right that isn't found in the common law, case law, or somewhere else.
      - dredmorbius 13y ago
        Any specific instances of 9th Amendment BSery you can think of?
        rayiner 13y ago
        See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Judicial_interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_S.... I tend to take a pretty originalist stance on the 9th. All it means that what the founders would have understood to be the "rights of Englishmen" in 1789 are still the "rights of Americans." In turn, those rights were defined by case law, tradition, and long-standing practice.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        Thanks. Yeah, there's the whole English Common Law thing as well. I got to see one of the exemplifications (as they're called) of the Magna Carta -- apparently a number of abbreviated copies were made, the original is lost. In particular it establishes rule of law (rather than arbitrary decree) and due process. Fairly awesome, in the true meaning of the word, to be in its presence.
will_brown 13y ago
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, though between creating a throwaway for the purposes this comment, the aptly selected name and failure to cite anything of value I am likely wasting time. Children and Parents have a 14th Amendment (Constitutional) right to Due Process and Equal Protection vis-a-vis Free and Appropriate Education. Case Law: "Children of this nation are entitled to a free, appropriate education." Forest Grove School District v. T. A. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-305 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-305) Legal Article: "The due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment protect the educational rights of children with disabilities. State law cannot override this constitutional protection." -The Legislative and Litigation History of Special Education (http://wwfinductionmodules-resources.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/view/History+of+Special+Education.pdf http://wwfinductionmodules-resources.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/...) It should be noted that special education is not limited to children with disabilities but includes exception students as well. It should also be noted that not a single State does not take Federal money for children with disabilities.
- smsm42 13y ago
  I am still at loss on how Due Process means people should get educational services for free. I understand why one may want to give these services for free, but I fail to see how it follows from Due Process. I guess that's why I am not a lawyer.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    The due process and equal protection clauses don't mean that "people should get educational services for free". It does mean, however, that if the State generally provides these services for free (and, a fortiori, if it, as many states do, adopts a right to such services as a State Constitutional guarantee), it cannot arbitrarily discriminate in who gets such services. (There are also federal statutory requirements that come into play if, as I believe every state does, states accept federal education funding.)

dredmorbius 13y ago

there is no "Constitutional right to free and appropriate education." There is in Florida: http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A9 http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Constitution#A9 "Constitutional" need not refer exclusively to the US Constitution.

rquantz 13y ago
Likewise, just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean it is not a constitutional right under the federal constitution.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  If you're going to pursue that argument, you'll have to point to construction, gloss, precedent, stare decisis, etc. You don't just get to make crap up. Edit: The parallel comment here actually does note that unenumerated rights can and do exist: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6842667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6842667
  - will_brown 13y ago
    Just for example, the right to an attorney in a criminal case...that is not enumerated in the Constitution but comes from case law, Gideon v. Wainwright (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gideon_v._Wainwright), interpreting the 14th Amendment. (Although a Constitutional Right there is additional case law that carves out certain criminal cases where an indigent would not be entitled to an attorney). Or how about Brown v. Board, you can read the Constitution all day and not find a single thing about the Constitutionality of de jure racial segregation in schools, yet when you read the case law that interprets the 14th Amendment, you will find in Brown 9-0 the Justices held such laws are Unconsitutional and violate the 14th Amendment. Further, it was just a few years earlier SCOTUS held separate but equal did not violate the 14th Amendment. So put less stock into the plain reading of the Constitution and more into the interpretation, which historically has been subject to change.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      You're demonstrating my point. Contruction is used to derive a right to representation under the equal protection doctrine of the 14th amendment. Similarly in Brown. There's a huge amount of Constitutionality (US) which derives from the Commerce Clause: "Congress shall have the power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". That's 21 words with a tremendous impact.
      - will_brown 13y ago
        Unless I misinterpreted your first comment, I made the opposite point. Someone stated there are Constitutional rights outside those enumerated in the Constitution, you asked for some support, specifically saying "you don't just get to make that crap up." So I gave 2 obvious specific examples of Constitutional Rights not enumerated in the Constitution. As far as the Commerce Clause that is not a Right but a Power, but again it supports the same point...just because the Constitution does not enumerate a power to the Gov does not mean the Gov does not have that Constitutional Power. The Commerce Clause is a good example, maybe the most obvious is Marbury v. Madison where the SCOTUS gives itself the right to Judicial Review.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        There's advocating a right out of thin air, and there's constructing a right out of existing doctrine: the Constitution, statute, court cases, "gloss" (prior court interpretation of all of the above). See: legal construction: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Construction http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Construction Gloss is somewhat more ambiguously defined: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gloss http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/gloss And I absolutely agree with you on Marbury v. Madison. That established the precedent of the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review and rule on constitutionality, which wasn't itself an enumerated power of the court: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison However, neither Construction nor Marbury give the court sui generis powers -- at least not usually, nor without a great deal of discomfit. I seem to recall a case (Learned Hand? Oliver Wendell Holmes?) where some pretty broad leaps were made.
  - ctdonath 13y ago
    Some of the Founding Fathers specifically opposed enacting a Bill Of Rights because lack of enumeration might be construed as not being a right, distracting from the main point that the government is not empowered to limit that which, tautologically, it is not empowered to limit. In http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm Alexander Hamilton contends that a BoR is pointless in that the Constitution strictly delineates the limits of governmental power, and anything not within those limits is by practical definition a Constitutional right insofar as the government has no delegated power to limit it.
    - bnolsen 13y ago
      So what you are saying is that the bill of rights itself lays out a recipe which tells polticians what to start regulating and limiting to get themselves more power to turn the US into a tyrrany. The excuse is that since it's in the constitution the government can regulate it, even though it it stated otherwise.
      - ctdonath 13y ago
        What I'm saying is that they Founding Fathers feared the BoR would be construed as being such a recipe when it plainly was not intended that way. Willful abuse of logical fallacies is common, needing only a pretext to build them on. The BoR was intended as an emphasis of what was not allowed, addressing key concerns; alas, the malicious point at it and contend that because it does not include every right to the point of encyclopedic completeness, anything not covered must not have been intended - which is obviously absurd, yet proves persuasive to the easily confused.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Likewise, just because a right is not enumerated in the Constitution does not mean it is not a constitutional right under the federal constitution. Or, to put it in the words of the Constitution itself, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The idea that enumeration of rights would serve as limitations on fundamental rights under the Constitution to those expressly enumerated was a concern with the whole idea of a Bill of Rights that the Ninth Amendment was adopted to resolve.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    I tend to cringe whenever someone invokes the 9th amendment, because it's always used to justify "rights" that whoever is invoking it completely made up. All the 9th amendment says is that the Bill of Rights is a non-exhaustive enumeration. Invoking it is appropriate when someone says: "there is no right to X because it's not in the Constitution." However, it does not help you bootstrap a right that isn't found in the common law, case law, or somewhere else.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      Any specific instances of 9th Amendment BSery you can think of?
      - rayiner 13y ago
        See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Judicial_interpretation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_S.... I tend to take a pretty originalist stance on the 9th. All it means that what the founders would have understood to be the "rights of Englishmen" in 1789 are still the "rights of Americans." In turn, those rights were defined by case law, tradition, and long-standing practice.
        dredmorbius 13y ago
        Thanks. Yeah, there's the whole English Common Law thing as well. I got to see one of the exemplifications (as they're called) of the Magna Carta -- apparently a number of abbreviated copies were made, the original is lost. In particular it establishes rule of law (rather than arbitrary decree) and due process. Fairly awesome, in the true meaning of the word, to be in its presence.

will_brown 13y ago

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, though between creating a throwaway for the purposes this comment, the aptly selected name and failure to cite anything of value I am likely wasting time. Children and Parents have a 14th Amendment (Constitutional) right to Due Process and Equal Protection vis-a-vis Free and Appropriate Education. Case Law: "Children of this nation are entitled to a free, appropriate education." Forest Grove School District v. T. A. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-305 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-305) Legal Article: "The due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment protect the educational rights of children with disabilities. State law cannot override this constitutional protection." -The Legislative and Litigation History of Special Education (http://wwfinductionmodules-resources.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/view/History+of+Special+Education.pdf http://wwfinductionmodules-resources.wiki.educ.msu.edu/file/...) It should be noted that special education is not limited to children with disabilities but includes exception students as well. It should also be noted that not a single State does not take Federal money for children with disabilities.

smsm42 13y ago
I am still at loss on how Due Process means people should get educational services for free. I understand why one may want to give these services for free, but I fail to see how it follows from Due Process. I guess that's why I am not a lawyer.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  The due process and equal protection clauses don't mean that "people should get educational services for free". It does mean, however, that if the State generally provides these services for free (and, a fortiori, if it, as many states do, adopts a right to such services as a State Constitutional guarantee), it cannot arbitrarily discriminate in who gets such services. (There are also federal statutory requirements that come into play if, as I believe every state does, states accept federal education funding.)