Rachel Canning Research Paper

I believe that the girl from New Jersey does not have a legitimate reason to sue her parents. The first statement is amendment 26 states that you must be 18 or older before you are able to vote which will not be denied by the United States. This means that when you are 18 you are officially an adult because you must be an adult to vote and Rachel Canning is 18 years of age. Because Rachel is 18 years old she is considered an adult and because the government considers her as an adult, so can her parents. When you become an adult you are officially on your own if your parents decided to let you go and do what you want. “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”(Amendment 26, Constitution) Not only does amendment 26 states that you are an adult at 18, Section eight on Article one states nowhere that the congress has power to force parents to pay education or education needs to happen. …show more content…
Her parents would have payed it if she didn't ask for $600 a month and the rest of her high school tuition to be paid during a court case that Rachel sued her parents in. So her parents are not required to pay for her schooling because congress does not require parents to pay for schooling. On top of that, she was too greedy for asking for extra money and the tuition during a court case, which she sounds like a spoiled brat, plus she sued her own parents and that's kind of hard to forgive your child for doing. So overall the 26th amendment and the eighth section of article one states that she is an adult because when you’re an adult you are officially allowed to vote and nowhere does it say that congress can force your parents to pay for