Lisa N. went to a seminar and we are all making lap books with enthusiasm. The editor has finally found some photos of a swamp after looking for two weeks.This was for her own bear book. Working on a leaf book now. See you at Sherwood with you space books October 7.

Grammar (Time, one hour)

Arithmetic (Time, 1.25 hours)

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)

Orthography (Time, one hour)

Geography (Time, one hour)

ASSISTANCE NEEDED TO DEFEAT FEDERAL LEGISLATION THAT DOES HOMESCHOOLERS MORE HARM THAN GOOD

A bill is currently before Congress, H.R. 2732 in the House and S.B. 1562 in the Senate, entitled, the Home Schoolers Non Discrimination Act, also known as the "HONDA" bill. This bill purports to "solve" certain perceived "problems" encountered by homeschoolers by amending existing federal laws to include provisions pertaining to homeschoolers. While the intent of the bill may be honorable, the effect of the bill is potentially disastrous for homeschooling parents who want to remain free from government regulation. This is because the federal government has no constitutional authority to directly regulate the education of homeschooled students, whether that regulation is for the benefit of the students or not. Once the federal government assumes the authority to regulate, even though purportedly beneficially, the federal government may continue to regulate in ways that may not be beneficial. If the federal government does so, such federal law may be interpreted to supercede state law thus rendering the state law ineffective. In other words, current state law that allows parents to homeschool their children with relative freedom due to little or no government intervention could be superceded by federal law imposing federal standards and regulation upon homeschoolers.

Any federal law that purports to "regulate" the activities of parents who educate their children at home is patently unconstitutional and should never be implemented. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress has no power to grant to itself any authority to "regulate" the activities of homeschoolers, whether that regulation is beneficial to homeschoolers or not. Any authority to do so is left to the states, not to the federal government.

To understand the important Constitutional issue at stake here, some background is necessary.

Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution does not specifically allow the federal government directly to regulate education of any kind. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution plainly states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, if it is not clearly enumerated in the Constitution that the United States government has the power to do something, as long as the Constitution does not prohibit the states from utilizing that power, then that power is left up to the States and to the people alone. The Constitution does not specify that the federal government has any power to regulate education of any kind. Consequently, the power to regulate education is left to the States and to the people.

Nonetheless, the courts have interpreted the Constitution to allow Congress to circumvent state sovereignty and to "regulate" indirectly by "spending" for the general welfare. This is how Congress "regulates" in the area of education when "regulation" of education is not an enumerated power of the federal government. This has occurred through federal judicial "interpretation" of the Constitution's "Spending Clause" and its "Commerce Clause". Under these two clauses, Congress adopts federal laws to "regulate" virtually any activity that involves federal money. If Congress cannot achieve objective "X" by direct regulation because it does not have that enumerated power in the Constitution, Congress may simply use its spending power to achieve objective "X" indirectly by depriving the states of money if the states do not achieve objective "X". Essentially, this is how the federal government has imposed "regulation" in all areas of public education and in some areas of private education (i.e., provision of special education). In other words, the federal government says to the states, "If you adopt a law that provides for all of the things listed in this federal law, then, the federal government will give you the money." The states, in turn, wanting the federal money, adopt laws that mirror the federal law. Through the years, this has become so commonplace that often the distinction between the authority of the federal government to regulate and the authority of the state government to regulate is blurred, sometimes to extinction.

Yes, there has been an erosion in the force and effect of the Tenth Amendment in recent years. The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court as to the effectiveness of the Tenth Amendment in limiting the power of the federal government in intruding upon state sovereignty has vacillated in recent decades, sometimes favoring state sovereignty, sometimes not. In one of its latest decisions, the Court seemed to say that when a state argues that its sovereignty has been impaired, the Court's answer would be "The fact that Congress (whose members are elected from individual states, pursuant to state-controlled qualifications) passed the bill (federal law), combined with the fact that the bill was not vetoed by the President (in whose election the states play a key role via the electoral college), necessarily means that state sovereignty has not been impaired. This interpretation by the court can, and has, led to some bizarre results. Of course, there are dissenting opinions on the Supreme Court. One dissenter was troubled by the fact that under this interpretation, "federal political officials, invoking the Commerce Clause, are the sole judges of the limits of their own power." One could argue that this type of interpretation played a key role in a recent federal court's decision to override state law in preventing the Ten Commandments from being displayed in a state court building.

One aspect of state sovereignty yet remains - a state's ability to make and apply law. Despite the recent interpretations by the Supreme Court, there are still some limits to the ability of Congress to interfere with these state lawmaking processes, and Congress will violate the Tenth Amendment if it exceeds those limits. Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative processes of the states by directly compelling them to enact and enforce some federal regulatory program. Congress may not force a state to adopt a certain regulatory scheme, or for a state to regulate in a certain area, if the state does not want to do so. This is extremely important for parents who educate their children at home to remember. The limitations on the power of the federal government, as expressed in the Tenth Amendment, are still viable and could be more viable and strengthened by the power of more people advocating for it.

There is one other aspect of the Constitution that needs to be explained, however. This is the "Supremacy Clause " of Article VI. It provides that in the case of a direct, obvious conflict between a federal statute and a state statute, the state statute is simply invalid. State law must yield to federal law. Federal law is said to have "preempted" state law. Even if the federal and state regulations do not conflict upon their face, it may be that the objectives behind the two regulations are inconsistent. In that case, too, the state regulation must fall, according to current judicial interpretation. Another way in which implementation of federal law may render state law invalid is for Congress to "occupy the field" for the federal government. In other words, if Congress has decided to "occupy the field" or "preempt" the entire subject area, state law in that area must fail no matter how well it agrees with the federal law. For example, where Congress has set up a federal agency and given it broad regulatory powers in a particular subject area, courts are likely to interpret this as indication of Congressional intent to preempt the field.

To summarize, Congress cannot directly "regulate" any aspect of education. In order to regulate, the federal government must do so by using its Spending and Commerce Clause authority indirectly to regulate the activities of those who accept federal dollars. The federal government also may regulate by "preempting the field" or by "preempting" a particular law if a state law conflicts with a federal law. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution places a limitation on the authority of the federal government and leaves up to the States and to the people all those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. With these Constitutional principles in mind, it can be and it should be argued that: (1) because regulation of homeschooling is not an enumerated power granted to the federal government in the Constitution, that power belongs to the States and to the people; (2) because parents who homeschool do not accept federal money, Congress has no authority under the Spending and Commerce Clauses to regulate homeschooling; (3) so far at least, the federal government has not "preempted the field" of regulating homeschooling; and (4) because there are few, if any, federal laws regarding homeschooling, state laws regarding homeschooling cannot conflict with them such that they are superceded by the federal law.

The HONDA bill would insert regulations affecting homeschooling into several laws that would allow the federal government to impose regulation despite the fact that it has no authority to do so. While homeschoolers do encounter problems from time to time, the resolution to those problems is not necessarily found in newly amended federal law. Those problems quite often are resolved through other means such as education of the uninformed and negotiation. Even if the proposed legislation purports to be helpful to resolve a particular problem encountered by homeschoolers, the ability of the federal government to declare a solution to that problem merely enables the federal government to more easily use its imagined power to further regulate or preempt the field, thus jeopardizing any existing state laws that may be much more beneficial to parents. Furthermore, if the federal government does "regulate" in any area of homeschooling, the power of the people to influence the adoption or rejection of regulation is greatly reduced. It is much harder to have a political impact on Congressional legislators from all across the country than it is for the people to have a political impact on the local legislators in their own state. Even worse, if a dispute about the law could not be resolved, the issue would be resolved by federal judges determining the power of the federal government. This is particularly worrisome in a time when federal judges increasingly have been quick to overlook the provisions cited in the Constitution in favor of increased federal government regulation.

There is much about the HONDA bill that is objectionable. Most, if not all of the objections, are directly related to one central fact: each time homeschoolers are included in any federal law, the federal government has usurped its authority under the Constitution and is effectively declaring that it can regulate homeschooling.

Connecticut is one state in which homeschoolers remain free from government regulation. Many Connecticut parents would like this state to remain free. In fact, many Connecticut parents would like Connecticut to remain a shining example of how freedom from any government regulation leads to great successes for homeschooled students. That is why these Connecticut parents are opposed to any government intervention, even "beneficial" intervention, and especially federal intervention. In order to accomplish the goal of remaining free, the following organizations are seeking the support of similar organizations nationwide in a grassroots effort to defeat the proposed HONDA legislation: Connecticut's Citizens to Uphold the Right to Educate, (CT'S C.U.R.E); Home Education Legal Defense of Connecticut, (H.E.L.D. of CT); Connecticut Homeschool Network, (C.H.N.); and Unschoolers Unlimited.

We are asking parents nationwide to contact the Congressmen and Senators representing their states to defeat this legislation. Please ask parents in your organization to write, email, or telephone the representatives from their state as soon as possible. Everyone should become familiar with the bill itself and be able to express their own cogent reasons for opposing it. However, to make it as easy as possible for all, we are providing the following information:

1. A link to the bill.
2. An analysis of the effect of the different sections of the bill as written by Attorney Deborah G. Stevenson, founder of CT's C.U.R.E. and Executive Director of H.E.L.D. of CT.
3. An abbreviated list of reasons why the proposed legislation may prove detrimental to homeschoolers.
4. A link to the members of the House of Representatives and the Senate for a listing of addresses, email, and telephone numbers.

See the HSLDA response at: http://www.cthomeschoolnetwork.org/HONDA2.htm

CHN has also received Attorney Stevenson's comments on HSLDA's response. See Attorney Stevenson's comments at: http://www.cthomeschoolnetwork.org/HONDA3.htm

ABBREVIATED LIST OF REASONS TO DEFEAT THE BILL:

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP DEFEAT HONDA

The following is a brief summary of arguments in opposition to the proposed legislation that readers may want to incorporate in any letters to Congressmen or Senators. However, it is very important that the legislators hear your personal reasons for opposing this bill. Each letter or phone call does count.

1. The bill inserts a potential definition of homeschooling into several federal laws where there was no definition previously. It is possible that such a federal definition could be interpreted to override the definition of homeschooling that exists independently in each state under state law.
2. Problems encountered by homeschoolers in accessing any of the "benefits" listed in this bill can and should more easily be resolved through education of the uninformed and negotiation rather than through implementation of federal legislation.
3. Certain states, such as Connecticut, have little or no state government regulation of homeschooling. This bill will impose regulation over homeschoolers where there was no regulation before.
4. Implementation of this legislation may have unintended detrimental consequences for homeschoolers.
5. Implementation of any federal law inevitably leads to enforcement of that federal law. Enforcement of that federal law may lead to judicial interpretation of that law. Judicial interpretation of any law may change the rights of those affected by the law.
6. Acceptance of federal funding by public and private schools provides the primary basis in law in which the federal government is able to "regulate" the activities within public and private schools. Homeschoolers who do not accept federal funding are not subject to federal "regulation". However, this bill now empowers the federal government to implement "regulation" of homeschoolers even though they do not receive federal funding, by defining homeschoolers and the criteria under which they may receive perceived federal "benefits". Homeschoolers who do accept federal funding by means of any federal "benefit" arguably could become even more easily "regulated" by the federal government.
7. Implementation of federal regulation over homeschoolers usurps the authority of states to either regulate or remain free from regulation if the states and the people so desire.
8. Any empowerment of the federal government to "regulate" homeschooling, even if such "regulation" seeks to assist homeschoolers, is improper and impermissible under the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution, under the tenth amendment, clearly states that any powers not specifically delegated to the federal government within the Constitution are reserved to the States and to the people. The Constitution does not specifically delegate the power to regulate education in any aspect to the federal government. Any power to regulate education is reserved to the States and to the people.

THE LINK TO CONGRESS: