Nichols, David K.2019-12-042019-12-042019-082019-07-09August 201https://hdl.handle.net/2104/10739This dissertation examines the American judiciary’s many attempts to adjudicate disputes between parents and the state concerning the education of children. I argue that by following the common-law tradition courts have been able—and can continue—to hold the middle ground between state and parental absolutism: common law instructs courts to begin with a general presumption that parents generally have affectionate and knowledgeable care for their children and then to judge the particular, competing interests of parents and the state in a way that does the least damage to each. This broad tradition—found in the writings of common-law jurists in England and America; articulated in state supreme court decisions in the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth century; and reinforced by the Supreme Court throughout the twentieth century (including in Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, and Wisconsin v. Yoder)—can help guide America’s jurisprudence today.application/pdfenConstitutional law. Parental rights. American political thought.ThesisNo access - Contact librarywebmaster@baylor.edu2019-12-04