Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2012 at 9:13 am Kathleen Ruegsegger is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Isn't it true that state law can override federal law if it is stronger law? So having more federal government wouldn't necessarily change this.
And do parents sign waivers regarding corporal punishment? Here is just the first public school document: Web Link (which allows you to opt out of corporal punishment) and here is a district where we once lived: Web Link (no corporal punishment allowed)
I recall getting stacks of papers requiring parent signatures (any district where we've lived). If I did not agree, I would cross out the part I would not allow and then sign. Parents need to be proactive.
Posted by Getting vertigo, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Wow, Resident, my head is still spinning from your statements. I guess I always knew that there were people out there who thought some beauracrat 2500 miles away knew how to raise kids better than the parents, and there it is in writing. "Leaving policy up to states...is simply not a good idea." People are just too darn stupid to have any control over their own lives and we need the federal government to make all of our decisions. That is what you're saying, isn' it?
Posted by Getting Nausiated, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Sep 24, 2012 at 11:40 pm
The snicklefritzes got caught cheating for God's sake. What did they expect, a pat on the head? Parents should be able to do what they want to their kids, just so long as they don't kill them or abort them, which is kind of the same thing. To heck with law, kids are parentel property. And I say we need more male principals and campus cops swatting teenage girls' bottoms with 2 X 4's. Keep goverment out of our lives!
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 8:35 am
"People are just too darn stupid to have any control over their own lives and we need the federal government to make all of our decisions. That is what you're saying, isn' it?"
I think we need to have some rules and laws that apply to all states.
What I am saying is that there are some states that are so backwards in their thinking that they cannot and should not be allowed to make their own rules, because that would be worse that a third world country (spanking of minors at school, etc). Did you read a couple of years ago how in Texas they had arrested a couple of adults for violating sodomy laws? That case went to the supreme court and it forced Texas to get rid of that silly law. This spanking thing imo needs intervention from outside of Texas.
Parents need to take responsibility for their kids, but no one in a school or other state run agency should have the right to spank a child, and in Texas, it is allowed. That used to be okay in the past, but not now. No teacher, or principal should spank a student, there are other ways to punish a student who misbehaved.
Spanking a teen for cheating? How about giving her an F instead? And even if the parents agree to the spanking, it should not be an option! The lesson is certainly not learned anyway. A permanent F on the academic record would be more efficient, and would not violate the child's rights.
And I do see a problem with two males (the principal and a police officer) spanking a teen girl behind closed doors.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 8:38 am
"What did they expect, a pat on the head?"
An F maybe? Certainly not corporal punishment. Even prisoners do not get that, but a teen girl does get it? It was not the parent who spanked the teen, it was the male principal, behind closed doors! Do you not see something wrong with that? And it left bruises! Texas needs to redo their rules/laws because allowing an adult to use corporate punishment with a student is simply wrong!
Posted by Getting vertigo, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Resident, why do you feel that you have the right to impose your beliefs on other people? The people involved in this case violated the law and I suppose they will be held accountable. If the residents of the town or state don't like corporal punishment there are means to change that. You stated that corporal punishment used to be OK but it isn't now; that's your opinion. Who put you in charge as dictator? Your suggestion that the federal government tell the states what they can and can't do is called tyranny. We have a constitution to prevent that from happening.
Posted by Getting Nausiated, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Your my hero Getting Vertigo. I'm from Mississippi, and if it hadn't been for the dictatorialist federal goverment telling us what to do, we'd still have slaves. States rights should always take priory over Federal dictatorialist laws. Now we have black people pushing dumb white folk out of our universities, all because the communist Kennedy and the activist liberal judges stepped in and pushed all us good white god fearing folks around. We maybe have better football teams now, but we lost a fortune when the Tyrannical Feds took away our slave labor.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 2:21 pm
"We have a constitution"
If you really believe in the constitution, then why are you defending corporal punishment of minors?
You know? In the past, there were states where interracial marriage was illegal, and thanks to federal laws, those states had to end their nonsense and follow other states that were already smart enough not to have such archaic laws and backwards views. States sometimes need the guidance of the federal government, not always, but it is necessary when dumb people make dumb laws that violate others' rights. A child has the right to be free of the threat of corporal punishment regardless of how he/she behaves at school.
Corporal punishment of minors by a school official is wrong. I am pretty sure that if a parent spanked their child so hard that it left bruises, and that child went to school and showed their bruise to a teacher, the teacher would call CPS (by law they have to). So why is it okay for an administrator (a male principal) to spank a teen girl and cause bruises as a result?
The federal government needs to intervene here, and force Texas to change the law that allows schools to use corporal punishment.
Posted by Getting Nausiated, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 3:12 pm
I've said all along that Texas and Alaska should secede from the nation. Then they can reinstitute laws against interracial marriage, perhaps reinstitute slavery, and permit school principals the right to leave bruises on little girls' bottoms. The deeper the bruise, the more the memory of wrongdoing will linger. This is why we are being outcompeted by the Chinese, Indians, and Uzbekistanis. In Uzbekistan, girls caught cheating are boiled in water before the premier's eyes. But here, all we do is molly cauldell our kids because Big Brother thinks it knows better than individuals like me.
I was talking about this at my backyard barbeeque when a deseased liberal came onto my property. Here I was trying to be neighborly and this liberal wanted to spread her desease among the whole neighborhood. I very politely but firmly told her to get out of my yard and out of the neighborhood. We don't need some federal goverment making choices that we as individuals can make on our ownsum.
Posted by Getting vertigo, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Resident, you're caught up in the fact that you don't agree with the spanking. I'm not arguing in favor of corporal punishment I'm arguing against giving more control to the federal government when it should remain in the hands of state and local governments where citizens can have much more influence.
If you don't support corporal punishment in your kid's school you can opt out as Kathleen suggested, go the school board meetings and demand that it be changed, or send your kid to another school. Based on the story, the laws were clearly broken but your reaction is to hand over more rights to the federal government. It's a foolish move to hand over power that you have through local and state representation.
In the eyes of the federal government, possession or use of marijuana is illegal even for medicinal purposes. Maybe you agree with that or maybe you don't. If you don't agree with it, and your state or local government has no authority to set its own laws, good luck getting the feds to change their law.
By the way, there is no federal law that made it illegal to ban interacial marriage. This is from a Supreme Court decision based on the Constitution.
Posted by Getting Nausiated, a resident of the Stoneridge neighborhood, on Sep 25, 2012 at 8:52 pm
And the Supreme Court decision on interracial marriage overrode states' ban upon such, no? And the ruling' was backed by, enforced by the feds, no? I guess after you write a little bit you lose track of your argument. But aside from his soft-headedness, I bet Southern plantation owners would have welcomed Vertigo with open (white) arms. And I wish more of Vertig's ilk had been around when the late great George Wallace attempted to stop the feds coming into the South to enforce desegregated schooling. Perhaps we'd still have a "states' rights" supported segregationist system of education in the South. But no, instead, all we have is a bunch of patriot tea partiers who long for the good old days.
Posted by Resident, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 26, 2012 at 7:52 am
"Resident, you're caught up in the fact that you don't agree with the spanking. "
I don't agree with the spanking, but that is just an example of how some states have rules/laws that are so unreasonable that the federal government should step in. Just because the residents of Texas agree with those unreasonable laws, it does not mean they should stand. Imagine if we had listened to states and their residents when many civil rights laws were passed. I am sure that if it were up to some states (and their residents), we would have some very backwards states where you would still see abortion being illegal, interracial marriage being illegal, etc
"By the way, there is no federal law that made it illegal to ban interacial marriage. This is from a Supreme Court decision based on the Constitution. "
Yes, i agree I called them the wrong thing, but I think of that ruling as a federal law (you are right, it is not, Loving was decided by the Supreme court but it is essentially a federal law since it overrules the states' individual anti-interracial marriage laws)
I still think that when backward states like Texas have unreasonable laws, and if no one is challenging the law by going all the way to the supreme court (a long process), the federal government should step in. I guess that is why it is important not to elect backwards thinking individuals, both at the state and federal level.
And the republicans do agree with some federal laws.. ask Boehner and his actions in support of the DOMA - hypocrisy?
And giving states the freedom to decide is still not enough. Just think of MA, where same sex couples can marry. Those marriages are still not recognized at the federal level (they should but they are not). If you give states too much autonomy, then what we have is a bunch of individual countries, each deciding and enforcing its own laws.