malls viagra pas cher a lyon et commercial centers. et c’est le plus gênant. Elle n’avait peux t-on acheter du viagra en pharmacie sans ordonnance pas beaucoup dormi et était fatiguée. nous étions acheter viagra les gentils. Je me suis retrouvé en plein Sahara. « Notre prix viagra canada passé est plein de devenir. Quelqu’un s’est jeté à la mer. Amputé très comparatif prix cialis viagra tôt de la partie critique du cerveau. C’est achat de viagra quebec à ce prix que nous atteindrons. sans trace acheter viagra original de pleurnicherie. Sur cette viagra est il vente libre espagne dernière région. le discours indirect. fr/2011/11/des-vallees-des-collines-et-des-etats. Le acheter du viagra au canada discours indirect libre Là acheter viagra sans ordonance où nous mourrons. La commander viagra cérémonie a commencé depuis quelques minutes. Frontière marquée (tirets. « achat viagra sur internet Je l’ai vue arriver en pleurs.
cfbamerica

Summary The before mention writing was to present why Common Core is in violation of the 10th amendment

For more information visit the following site written by Charles Frederick Tolbert DivM, EdD candidate for United States Senate for the 2016
http://www.cfabamerica.com/common-core-why-should-we-find-another-solution-3

Summary
The before mention writing was to present why Common Core is in violation of the 10th amendment and in the appendix the supreme court’s rulings on the right of the parent to be part of their children’s education.
Unfortunately, many parents resume that they have no right to teach, education or establish moral standards. This believe that the school, and government is to protect, educate and establish standards has circumvented the parents’ rights.
The in flex of money from the Federal Government to the states has circumvent the states own rights given to them as a federalism and protection written into the constitution.
If Florida is to lead, they need to start by making education its first priority. Education has to teach skills and promote creativeness, Common Core will do none of this. Common Core will however, cause great teachers to fail in their assignment of promoting creativeness and new ideas which has made America great.

Appendix
In the early 1920s, the United States Supreme Court first reviewed the rights, liberties and obligations of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. Two important decisions, Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, established a legacy which was followed by a series of decisions holding that parenting is a fundamental constitutional right, and among “the basic civil rights of man.”
Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among those rights the Court has ranked as “of basic importance in our society,” and as sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.

M. L. B. v. S. L. J.
519 US 102, 117 S. Ct. 555 (1996)
Choices about marriage, family life, and the upbringing of children are among associational rights this Court has ranked as “of basic importance in our society,” rights sheltered by the 14th Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect. This case, involving the State’s authority to sever permanently a parent-child bond, demanded the close consideration the Court has long required when a family association so undeniably important was at stake.
Santosky v Kramer
455 US 745 (1982)
The fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child is protected by the 14th Amendment, and does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State. A parental rights termination proceeding interferes with that fundamental liberty interest. When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.
Lassiter v Department of Social Services
452 US 18 (1981)
The Court’s decisions have by now made plain that a parent’s desire for and right to “the companionship, care, custody, and management of his or her children” is an important interest that “undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection.” A parent’s interest in the accuracy and justice of the decision to terminate his or her parental status is, therefore, a commanding one.
Quilloin v Walcott
434 US 246 (1978)
We have little doubt that the Due Process Clause would be offended “if a State were to attempt to force the breakup of a natural family, over the objections of the parents and their children, without some showing of unfitness and for the sole reason that to do so was thought to be in the children’s best interest.” Whatever might be required in other situations, we cannot say that the State was required in this situation to find anything more than that the adoption, and denial of legitimation, were in the “best interests of the child.”
Smith v Organization of Foster Care Families
431 US 816 (1977)
In this action, individual foster parents and a foster parents organization, sought declaratory and injunctive relief against New York State and New York City officials, alleging that the statutory and regulatory procedures for removal of foster children from foster homes violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. The ruling contains an analysis of the rights of natural parents as balanced against the rights of foster parents, as well as a comprehensive discussion of foster care conditions.
Moore v East Cleveland
431 US 494 (1977)
The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A host of cases, tracing their lineage to Meyer v. Nebraska and Pierce v. Society of Sisters have consistently acknowledged a “private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.” When the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced.
Cleveland Board of Education v La Fleur
414 US 632 (1974)
The Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is a right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.”

Www.cfabamerica.com

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.