The question of if and when parents should be allowed to opt their children out of certain activities and curriculum in public schools has been raging for quite a while. With our societies rapidly changing standards, the need for parents to oversee and control the upbringing of their children has become even more important. Yet the Montgomery County School Board decided that in one area of instruction, story time, parents of children as young as three would not be allowed to opt their children out of religiously objectionable material. Did the School Board violate the First Amendment, or maybe another one?
Who is in charge of your children? That has been a perennial question that has grown in importance over the last few years. When I was a child, it was understood that, with rare exceptions, parents were in charge of a child’s upbringing. This included medical, religious, and educational decisions. However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts. What happens when the goal of the experts differs from those of the parents? Who decides the future of the rising generations? It was understood that the state acted in loco parentis, in place of the parents, only for the safety of the child. A recent case in U.S. District Court shows that be it health departments, child services, schools, or even the courts. Government not only believes they know better than the parents, they are more than willing to act in loco parentis tyrannis.
https://constitutionstudy.com/?p=8897
With the release of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) applications, there has been a lot of speculation and downright assertions about our future. With over 30 years of experience in Information Technology (IT), not more than a passing understanding of AIs, I've come to the conclusion that much of what I've heard is more science fiction than fact. A recent court case decided in the D.C. District Court revolved around one very important question. Do AIs have rights?
In this third installment of the three-part series on the branches of government, we look at the role of the third and weakest branch. At least that is what our Founding Fathers thought of it. What is the role of the federal judiciary? What are the extent of their powers, how do they related to the other two branches of government, and why is a proper understanding of the role of the judiciary critical if the United States is to remain a constitutional republic?
https://constitutionstudy.com/?p=8575
If you’ve followed the news out of Washington, D.C. lately, you could almost forget there are three branches of government. That is how focused the media has been on the fight between the President and the federal judiciary. Have you ever considered what you can do about “rogue” judges? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
With the defeat of Kamala Harris last November, I’m sure most Americans thought that federal censorship was over. But that is not the case. In fact, federal censorship and meddling with your rights continues, only the names have been changed to protect the guilty. - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
The First Amendment and our state constitutions protect a person’s right to seek a redress for their grievances. But as with any other human endeavor, people can corrupt the system for their own gain. So what happens when the systems designed to seek redress are instead used for political gain? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
