Meyers v. Nebraska
Ten-year-old Raymond came running home from school and burst through the door. "Mom! Mom!" he called out, "You know how Mr. Meyer has been teaching us German? Well, today we read the most amazing Bible story...IN GERMAN! Want to hear it?"
Raymond's mother smiled as she listened to her son share all the details from school that day. She felt so thankful that they had found a school which shared their moral and spiritual beliefs and admired the education Mr. Meyers was providing their child. She was deeply satisfied with the school they had chosen for their precious son.
* * * * * * *
Robert Meyer, a school teacher at a Lutheran grade school in Nebraska, loved teaching. His students were vibrant and eager to learn, and he loved watching daily as their minds filled with knowledge like little sponges.
However, in 1919 Nebraska passed a law that prohibited teaching foreign languages to grade school students. The reasoning behind this law assumed that exposing a child in grade school to a foreign language could indoctrinate that child with ideas that could be damaging to our country's safety.
Mr. Meyers was tried and convicted of having broken the law by teaching young Raymond German. Mr. Meyers believed he (together with Robert's parents) had a right to teach Robert German while reading him Bible stories. He appealed his conviction to the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC).
The Fourteenth Ammendment of our Constitution says "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." But what is liberty exactly? That was really the question being asked. Does liberty include the right to learn? Does liberty mean parents should have the power to provide an education for their child? The USSC said yes! They said that learning German wouldn't injur Robert's health or morals, and that "mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful."
The legislature had attempted to interfere with the "opportunities of pupils to acquire knowledge", and "with the power of parents to control the education of their own". The Supreme Court said liberty may not be interfered with by arbitrarily passing laws under the guise of protecting the public interest. This sure makes sense. Who would want the government going around arbitrarily passing laws and claiming "this protects the public interest" even if it violates our freedom and liberty? Certainly if there is some legitimate risk of harm or emergency the government should be able to protect our nation. But otherwise, there is no legitimate justification for infringing on our freedom.
Disclaimer:
I am not an attorney, nothing I say is legal advice, and be aware that I took some writers liberty to develop the story (i.e. I have no idea if Raymond talked to his mother after school or played ball with his buddies). I would encourage you to read the 1923
Meyers v. Nebraska decision for yourself.
