ILYA SOMIN: How the Constitution protects “free range” parents.

The Supreme Court has always indicated that parental rights are not absolute. The state can intervene to protect children against serious threats to their health and safety, and to ensure that all children get at least a basic education. But, as Troxel makes clear, the state can’t infringe on parental control over child-raising unless they have real evidence showing that there is a genuinely significant threat to the childrens’ safety and well-being. Otherwise, as Justice O’Connor’s opinion makes clear, the authorities must respect the “presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children.”

Forcibly detaining elementary school-aged kids for walking by themselves in a safe, middle-class neighborhood doesn’t even come close to meeting the necessary standard. Statistically, such walking is extremely safe, and probably less dangerous than police officers’ actions in forcibly detaining the children and driving them to a CPS office. According to the Center for Disease Control, car accidents are a leading cause of death among small children; riding in a car as a passenger is far more dangerous for kids than walking in most neighborhoods. Far from “protecting” the two children, the police and the CPS probably put them at greater risk than they were exposed to before (though the risk was still very low in an absolute sense). The Meitivs’ parenting practices are also much safer than numerous typical childhood activities, such as participating in contact sports like basketball and hockey, or going downhill skiing. If the CPS can force parents to stop letting their children walk home from the park, it can similarly target every other comparably risky activity, including numerous sports, and even driving the children in a car.

The bottom line is that the CPS’ actions here seem to be the result of exactly the kind of “mere disagreement” with parental choices that the Supreme Court specifically barred as a basis for overriding parents’ constitutional right to direct their children’s upbringing.

Tar. Feathers.

ILYA SOMIN: Why mandatory jury service is a poor justification for mandatory voting.

DAVID BERNSTEIN & ILYA SOMIN: The Mainstreaming of Libertarian Constitutionalism.

FROM ILYA SOMIN, a review of Damon Root’s Overruled: The Long War for Control of the Supreme Court.

ILYA SOMIN: Changing public attitudes toward federalism.

In a poll conducted last year, Samples and Ekins replicated a series of questions on what level of government should make “the major decisions” on various issues, that were first asked in a 1973 Harris poll. With the exception of national defense (where there has been no statistically significant change), there has been a substantial increase in preference for state and local control relative to federal.

On several important issues, majority opinion has actually flipped over the last forty years, shifting from a majority in favor of federal dominance to a majority against it. For example, the percentage of Americans who believe that state or local government should make the major decisions on drug policy has increased from 39% in 1973 to 61% in 2013. On health care, it has risen from 40% to 62%; on environmental protection, it has gone from 36% to 56%. On prison reform, the proportion supporting state and local primacy has increased from 43% to 68%.

In both 1973 and 2013, substantial majorities favored federal primacy on national defense, Social Security, and cancer research. But in the last two cases, the minority preferring state or local control has substantially increased. Similarly, in both 1973 and 2013, large majorities favored state or local control of education, transportation, housing, and welfare policy. But on all four issues, those anti-federal government majorities have grown substantially.

Well, the Federal Government hasn’t exactly covered itself with glory since 1973.

ILYA SOMIN: Assessing a possible Scottish secession. “I think it’s clear that Scottish independence isn’t inherently objectionable. Whether it is actually a good idea is a much tougher call.”

ILYA SOMIN: Why the DC Circuit’s interpretation of the ACA in Halbig v. Burwell is far from “absurd.”

ILYA SOMIN: Political Ignorance And The Founding Fathers.

ILYA SOMIN: A dubious effort to use Brown v. Board of Education to attack the current Supreme Court.

ILYA SOMIN: Why the federal government wastes large amounts of property it often doesn’t even know it owns.

ILYA SOMIN: Target The Russian Elites.

ILYA SOMIN: Assessing possible unintended consequences of compensating innocent people who serve time in prison for crimes they did not commit.

GEORGE WILL: The Price of Political Ignorance: More Government.

A column on Ilya Somin’s book, Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter.

VIDEO of Ilya Somin’s book forum at the Cato Institute on his book, Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government Is Smarter.

ILYA SOMIN: Voting With Your Feet Works for the Poor, Too.

ILYA SOMIN: The Superiority of Democracy Over Dictatorship is No Reason to Ignore the Problem of Political Ignorance.

ILYA SOMIN: Foot Voting vs. Ballot Box Voting.

His new book is Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter.

ILYA SOMIN: Why Political Ignorance Matters. Also, Why Political Ignorance Is A Serious Problem. Both posts drawn from his new book, Democracy and Political Ignorance: Why Smaller Government is Smarter, which just came out from Stanford University Press last week. (Bumped).