parental rights amendments-- good or bad idea?

[fiberdrunk]

Because of a NCHE (North Carolinians for Home Education) alert, I found out about NC HB 711 (Define Parental Rights Standard/Statutory Law), which reads:

 

 

"The liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, and care of his or her child is a fundamental right. Neither the State nor any agency or locality of the State shall infringe on a parent's right to the care, custody, and control of his or her child without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served."

.Pdf file

 

The above text is nearly identical to the federal parental rights amendment. I'm aware of the UN Convention for the Rights of the Child. I thought a parental rights amendment (both federal and state) would give some protection from that (and I have written to my reps saying so in the past), but the phrase "without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served" sounded more like a way for the government to wriggle itself into the family, and I was surprised the NCHE (and Parental Rights.org, which is run by Michael Farris of HSLDA) would urge others to support a bill with such vague language. I emailed Publius-Huldah to ask her opinion about this-- she is an attorney and has an outstanding blog about the constitution (I don't know her personally, but I've been a long-time reader of her blog). What she wrote back to me astonished me.

 

She warned against all parental rights amendments (and not just the portion I was troubled by in the NC bill). Publius-Huldah writes:

 

 

 

1. One must understand the treaty making powers of the United States. I explain it in two papers at:

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/treaty-making-powers-of-the-united-states/

The second paper addresses the U.N. Declaration on the rights of the child, and outlines why, as a matter of constitutional construction, the U.N. Declaration on the rights of the child would

not

become part of the "supreme law of the land"

even if

2/3 of the Senators present voted to ratify it! I prove in the papers that the federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties. It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.

 

2. Nothing in the Constitution gives the federal government jurisdiction over "children" & "families". Ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only. I prove this in papers throughout my website. But here is an introduction:

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/congress-enumerated-powers/

 

3. As of now, the federal government has no constitutional authority whatsoever over "families" or "children".

But the so-called "parental rights amendment" would grant to the federal courts jurisdiction over "families" & "children"!

Look at Art. III, Sec. 2 which enumerates the jurisdiction of the federal courts. It reads:

 

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

 

The proposed "parental rights amendment" is what would transform "families" & "children"

from

matters over which the federal government now has no lawful jurisdiction

to

matters under control of the federal courts. This is because "parental rights", "families" and "children" would NOW become cases "arising under this Constitution" - i.e., the constitutional amendment!

 

It is the proposed "parental rights amendment" which would give the U.S. Senate

constitutional

authority to ratify the U.N. Declaration on the rights of the child!

 

4. The enemy has brainwashed many of us into believing that our rights come from the Constitution. That is a pernicious & evil Lie - but many believe it and so clamor for "constitutional protection" of the family. I explain "Rights" at

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/is-medical-care-a-right/

 

And if you want to understand the tender mercies of the U.S. Supreme Court respecting our so-called "constitutional rights", see:

http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/separation-of-church-and-state/

which shows how the Court used the 1st Amendment (which was supposed to protect religious speech), to ban religious speech in public places throughout our country.

 

In order to understand why it is such a bad idea, one needs to understand the constitutional principles explained in these various papers - including the jurisdiction of the federal courts to hear cases! Our people do not have that knowledge.

We will not be brought down by our enemies from without. We are being brought down by our own blind ignorance, irrationality and pride.

 

 

I've checked on Govtrack and discovered many states have similar parental rights amendments underway, which HSLDA / Parental Rights.org are actively supporting. If Publius-Huldah is right, we are moving towards putting parental rights under the control of federal government and courts and not away from it as we are supposing-- a right which should be "self-evident" and not legislated in its fundamental sense. I admit I, myself, was looking for protection for parental rights under the constitution initially, but Publius-Huldah has shown me otherwise. Those enumerated rights are perhaps better kept at a minimum, rather than expanded upon.

 

I'm deeply troubled by this, because so many homeschooling groups are supporting parental rights amendments in their states without doing their research or fully understanding the implications. Most of us don't have law degrees and don't understand legalese. I am not affiliated with any organization or person; and the only interest I have in all this is the protection of my own family and the ability to continue to homeschool my children, same as the rest of you. I've posted this information in my own quest to discover the truth of these things and hope others will also read further beyond the alerts we are receiving from some homeschooling groups. I've tried to include links for both sides of the issue below. I hope you will read deeply and give this issue your most thoughtful attention, especially in regards to how all this gells with the constitution (or not). I am not affiliated with any of the websites I've linked to. I'm not a lawyer, but I sought one out to better understand the language of law. Obviously, not all lawyers agree on the matter because we have Publius-Huldah and NHED on the opposing side of parental rights amendments, and the HSLDA on the supporting side. I would welcome open discussion on this important matter. With HB 711 currently before the NC state legislature (and many other states, likewise), the sooner we know all the facts, the better, before it gets above us. Feel free to forward this.

Links for further research (both sides of the issue):

 

Federal parental rights amendment text

 

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

 

Publius-Huldah's constitutional blog

 

National Home Education Defense (has many articles explaining why to oppose parental rights amendments -- recommended)

 

Govtrack tracking of parental rights amendments (check to see if your state is listed here)

 

Parental Rights.org list of states with parental rights amendments (check to see if your state is listed here)

 

HSLDA (pro-parental rights amendments)

 

 

If you're in North Carolina:

 

NC HB 711 (North Carolina Define Parental Rights Standard/Statutory Law Bill)

NCHE (North Carolina Home Education's pro-parental rights amendment)

[hillfarm]

I definitely understand the problem. By claiming our rights "under this constitution", we are actually limiting those rights. If legislation is needed, and I am not convinced it is, perhaps it should focus on limiting and delineating the rights of the government toward families and children instead of enumerating those of the parents.

 

Has anyone seen any discussion of why the HSLDA supports such legislation?

[fiberdrunk]

HSLDA has a lot of articles about the importance of an amendment, but I still don't exactly see why, other than encroaching threats, particularly from the UN. But I don't see exactly how an amendment would give protection:

 

Why We Need It

 

I found this older article from 2008 from Home Education Magazine opposing the amendment: Can a Constitutional Amendment Protect Parental Rights?

[Murphy101]

I think it's stupid. It basically boils down to an amendment that says, "oh yes parents have rights to custody education and care of the children unless the state decides they don't for reasons the state deems appropriate. "

 

Which means no, actually parents don't have any rights.

 

I also agree with a pp that a better way to ensure parental rights is to instead limit govt intrusion abilities.

[celticmom]

This debate about whether or not enumerating rights in the constitution will limit them is not new at all. If I recall my American history, the bill of rights was actually very controversial when the idea was first put forth for this very reason. Many of the arguements in the Federalist papers would most likely still be valid.

 

Ideally the government would keep its nose out of areas that it is not specifically given juristiction over in the constitution but our present government is not inclined to do so unless explicitly told to stay out. Hence the arguements for additional enumerated rights.

[Murphy101]

I wish HSLDA would shut up. Lately they do more harm than help. I don't agree with their agenda and I think the political beds they share cloud their ability to focus on genuine home school rights issues.

[fiberdrunk]

Great point about the Federalist Papers! Yes, the struggle is the same, isn't it?

[fiberdrunk]

I wish HSLDA would shut up. Lately they do more harm than help. I don't agree with their agenda and I think the political beds they share cloud their ability to focus on genuine home school rights issues.

 

 

Let's be careful not to let this devolve into an anti-HSLDA thread. I don't want the thread to be shut down. It's too important an issue. Let's keep it on the amendment itself.

[fiberdrunk]

I agree. I don't care so much about them having their own agenda, but I wish they would stop calling themselves a group that supports homeschoolers. Mostly what they do with homeschoolers is take their money so they can use it to further causes having nothing to do with homeschooling.

 

 

Like I said, let's be careful not to make this an anti-HSLDA thread. It's far more constructive to take issue with specific points in their pro-amendment articles and discuss why you oppose those rather than the organization itself. This issue is way bigger than HSLDA.

 

eta: there are at least 35 states that are at various stages in their pursuit to get a parental rights amendment passed (and in a few states, they have already passed). Let's keep our eye on the ball here.

[Ravin]

My state has a parents' bill of rights in its constitution, but you can't bring civil action against the government over it, so it's rather toothless.

 

A far as federal constitutional law, the right to parent your children (and the right of children to their parents) is recognized as fundamental. It cannot be taken without Due Process--which means it can be taken, but there must be a consistent legal procedure for doing so that is the same for all similarly situated parents.

 

The right is the reason "grandparents' rights" have been construed as entirely secondary to those of parents.

[albeto]

I don't understand.

 

"The liberty of a parent to direct the upbringing, education, and care of his or her child is a fundamental right. Neither the State nor any agency or locality of the State shall infringe on a parent's right to the care, custody, and control of his or her child without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served."

 

I'm reading this to say parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit unless they deny the child safety and adequate care. Is that close?

[Murphy101]

No, that's not correct. "highest order" and "not otherwise served" is so vague and nebulous as to mean anything at any given time pending whoever interprets it.

[LucyStoner]

I don't consider the UN or their Declaration of the Rights of the Child to be a threat. Parents already have and exercise rights over their children. I obviously support families, parents and kids. I don't see the reasons why this law would be needed above the laws already in place.

[fiberdrunk]

That was the original troublesome clause for me, too, albeto and martha. This is from the Parental Rights.org website and how they explain it, though I'm still suspicious of it. They give a break-down explanation for each section of the federal amendment:

 

 

 

". . . of the highest order and not otherwise served."

 

 

 

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order for the state of Wisconsin to override the rights of Amish parents, the government had to show that it had a compelling interest in requiring students to stay in school until age 16. Speaking of the right of the parents, the Court said that "the essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion." Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972) (emphasis added).

 

The Supreme Court has required the government to follow this standard whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right. Prominent examples of this are cases that deal with racial discrimination (see Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995): "All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. . . . Such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests"), restrictions on free speech (see Widmar v. Vincent, 254 U.S. 263, 269-270 (1982): Whenever discriminating against speech on the basis of its content, the government "must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end"), and invidious discrimination against religion (see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993): "To satisfy the commands of the First Amendment, a law restrictive of religious practice must advance 'interests of the highest order' and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests." In all these cases, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest, before the fundamental freedom at stake can be limited.

 

[Guest larryjones]

My understanding of "without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served" means there has to be evidence of abuse or neglect and that the governmental action resolves a problem that cannot be resolved by local or private agencies.

 

Are any of the commenters on here legislative or Constitutional scholars that can refute Dr. Michael Farris' claim that the Parental Rights Amendment is needed? Why would he be wasting precious time, energy, and resources on a frivolous initiative?

 

I support the Parental Rights Amendment and NC HB 711. I think it helps protect the authority of good parents to educate and raise their children in the way they see fit. I don't, however, think it solves the larger problem in society because many parents that already have the necessary authority don't accept the responsibility of raising their children with traditional values, morals, integrity, and strong character.

[Violet Crown]

IANAL, but I assume all this activity is in reaction to Employment Division v. Smith, which arguably knocked the legs out from under Yoder (the case which gave us the constitutional right to homeschool). The Smith opinion explicitly said it wouldn't undermine Yoder, but the passage in which it did so appealed confusingly to a sort of hybrid rights analysis which quite a few actual lawyers involved in this sort of thing think would be seen as mere dictum (i.e. comments by the Court that aren't binding law) were a homeschool case to come before the Court again.

 

Short version: It's not at all clear that Yoder still gives us the constitutional right to homeschool. So HSLDA is apparently trying to enshrine Yoder language into state constitutions. So that when California (for example) gives another shot at outlawing homeschooling, and we all realize that the conservative justices who voted for Smith aren't going to vote our way, there will be state law to fall back on.

[fiberdrunk]

Are any of the commenters on here legislative or Constitutional scholars that can refute Dr. Michael Farris' claim that the Parental Rights Amendment is needed? Why would he be wasting precious time, energy, and resources on a frivolous initiative?

 

 

 

Sorry, I missed this. I haven't been online much recently, what with trying to finish up the school year. I don't pretend to know what Farris's motives are. No one is suggesting this is a "frivolous initiative," however. No matter what side of the issue you are on, this is very serious business.

 

Publiush-Huldah is a constitutional scholar and lawyer. She will be posting an article about parental rights amendments soon. I will update when she does.

 

In the meantime, NHELD has articles about this you can read. They are a law firm in CT (attorney Deborah G. Stevenson). Here's just one of her many articles:

 

 

Did you know? Certain organizations are promoting passage of a Constitutional Amendment purporting to protect the rights of parents. NHELD opposes such a Constitutional Amendment for a variety of reasons.

 

Here is what the draft states:

DRAFT PARENTAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

 

SECTION 1

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

 

SECTION 2

Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

 

SECTION 3

No treaty nor any source of international law may be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

 

People are asking, “Do we need this Constitutional Amendment to protect the right of parents?â€

The answer is No.

 

Why not?

 

Parents already have an unalienable right to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

 

The Constitution does not grant rights to the people. It establishes a government designed to secure the rights that the people already have. The Constitution defines the structure of our government, grants certain powers from the people to the government, and places limits on certain powers granted to the government. These principles were cited in the Constitution itself, in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

 

The Ninth, and the Tenth Amendment, are among the most important of the Amendments. Just in case there was any doubt about what the framers intended in the rest of the Constitution, the framers clarified for all time their intent in these two Amendments.

 

The Ninth Amendment states,

 

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.â€

 

The Ninth Amendment says that while the framers may have enumerated certain rights in the Constitution, the mere listing of those rights shall not be construed somehow to mean that the people do not retain other rights, and shall not be construed somehow to deny the people any of the other rights that they already retain.

 

The Tenth Amendment states,

 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.â€

 

Just to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding, the framers added this Amendment. It clearly indicates that the framers, in fact, in the Constitution were delegating certain powers to the new government of the United States. It also clearly indicates that while the people did delegate some powers to the United States government, all of the other powers not mentioned in the Constitution, in no uncertain terms, are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.†In other words, the people have certain unalienable rights. The people granted to the United States government certain powers concerning their rights, and the people may have delegated certain powers concerning those rights to the government of the States. Therefore, those powers that the people did not specifically, in this Constitution, grant to the United States government, remain powers either already granted by the people to the State government, or are being retained by the people. This explains the framework, intent, and meaning of all of the provisions of the Constitution.

 

In other words, precisely because the Constitution does not contain reference to the rights of parents, those rights are retained by the people. They are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

The Constitution does not grant any power to the federal government to interfere in any way with those rights in any way.

 

According to the Ninth and Tenth Amendment then, any power concerning the rights of parents and children are reserved to the States respectively or to the people.

 

That means that right now, according to the Constitution, the United States government has absolutely no authority to say or do anything about the rights of parents and children. Those rights are unalienable and are retained by the people. The people may have granted certain of their power concerning the already existing rights of parents and children, however, to the States.

 

The people in most states, through their elected officials in the state legislatures, have granted to the State government the power to regulate both the education and the upbringing of the children. They have done so by adopting state laws regulating such things as education, homeschooling, neglect of children and abuse of children.

 

Because the people have granted this power to the States, the States have utilized this power. An individual parent objecting to the use of the State’s power against that parent may choose to fight the use of that power by objecting in court. In that case, the people of that State have granted to the State the power to make a judicial ruling as to the outcome of the dispute between the State and the parents. If the parents do not agree with that judicial decision, they may appeal it until they have exhausted the appellate court system. Often, the courts will rule in favor of the State against the parents. This probably has fueled interest in the desire to adopt a Constitutional Amendment, however, a Constitutional Amendment does not guarantee that a judge will rule in favor of a parent.

 

That’s because judges have taken it upon themselves to claim the right to “interpret†the Constitution and the laws of the land. Even though the language in the Constitution may be crystal clear to any intelligent reader, nonetheless, a court may choose to “interpret†the language in any way that it chooses, despite the existence of so-called “rules of construction.â€

 

Adding new language to the Constitution alluding in any way to the rights of parents gives unelected officials, politically appointed to our courts, all across the country the opportunity to “interpret†the meaning of the language contained in that new Constitutional amendment. Given the recent proclivity of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, to lawmaking through judicial activism, and, more importantly, the court’s penchant to rely not just on United States law, but on international law, a judicial “interpretation†of such a Constitutional amendment could lead to the opposite outcome than what is desired by any Constitutional amendment.

 

It is a real possibility that the language in a new Constitutional amendment might be “construed†as granting a heretofore, unrecognized power to the federal government to become involved in parental rights issues. After all, the courts have found many so-called “rights†in the “penumbra†or shadows of language of currently existing Constitutional provisions. There is no telling what would lurk in the shadows of the language of a Constitutional provision regarding the rights of parents.

 

In fact, the United States Supreme Court already has found rights of parents to be lurking in the shadows of the Constitution. In several cases, it has determined that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the upbringing and education of their children by virtue of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, an amendment that says nothing about parents.

 

In Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) , the Supreme Court explained,

 

“More than [seventy-five] years ago, in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399, 401 [43 S.Ct. 625, 67 L.Ed.1042] (1923), we held that the liberty protected by the [d]ue [p]rocess [c]lause includes the right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their own. Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, [534-35, 45 S.Ct. 751, 69 L.Ed.1070] (1925), we again held that the liberty of parents and guardians includes the right to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control. . . . We returned to the subject in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 [64 S.Ct. 438, 88 L.Ed.645] (1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. It is cardinal . . . that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. Id." Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)

 

However, in each of those cases, the Supreme Court also found that the State may regulate the fundamental rights of parents.

 

In fact, because the Supreme Court found the rights of parents to be fundamental, the regulations placed on the rights of parents, when reviewed by a court, are deemed lawful only when passing a “strict scrutiny†test. That is, they are deemed lawful if the court finds that the state has a “compelling interest†in adopting those regulations.

 

In other words, without even having one word cited in the Constitution, our judicial system has “found†that parents have a “Constitutional right†to the upbringing and education of their children, but that right may be interfered with by the State as long as the State has a good enough reason for doing so.

 

The courts needed no language in the Constitution to make those findings.

 

What will the court find when it does have language in the Constitution to “interpret�

 

Will the “findings†and “interpretations†depend on who the justices are and who appointed them? Probably.

 

Will the “findings†and “interpretations†depend also on what law the justices look to for “assistance†in interpreting that language? More than likely.

 

Will the final arbiter of an “interpretation†of a provision in the United States Constitution be made ultimately by the United States Supreme Court? Definitely.

 

If the Constitution, by its express language in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment, already states that the rights not specified in the Constitution as delegated to the federal government remain the rights of the States and the people, will the final arbiter of a dispute about the rights of parents necessarily be the United States Supreme Court? Absolutely not.

 

The final arbiter of the rights of parents is the State Supreme Court.

 

More importantly, by the express language of the Constitution, the rights of parents, if they are to be interfered with, may be interfered with only by the State government. By its interpretations in previous decisions, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed this.

 

Therefore, if parents already have an existing right to the upbringing and education of their children, that may be interfered with only by the State government, then parents can have the most affect on retaining their rights unfettered by government interference by educating those in their state’s legislature to reduce or eliminate State regulations.

 

Not only is it far easier to affect change in regulation at the State level, but it is what the Constitution already provides.

 

Parents already have unalienable rights. While the State may have certain rights as well, parents already have the power to reduce and eliminate any interference with those rights.

 

If a Constitutional Amendment is enacted, the power of parents to affect reduction and elimination of interference with those rights is substantially weakened when power to “interpret†that Constitutional provision is given to a handful of justices politically appointed for life sitting on the United States Supreme Court.

 

NHELD supports the power of “we the people†at the state level as it currently exists, rather than ceding even more power to the hands of a few at the federal level. Our Constitution should remain as is.

 

[fiberdrunk]

Here's a

by Deborah G. Stevenson of NHELD, too (mainly about the UN treaty on the Rights of the Child).

[fiberdrunk]

The NC amendmentpassed the house on May 15th and has now gone on to the senate. Last chance to oppose!

 

I got an alert today from HSLDA that the federal parental rights amendment is beginning to rear its head again:

 

Parental Rights Amendment Now Accepting Cosponsors

The Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution is back in the U.S. Congress! Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) will be the lead sponsor this term, with support from Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ). The Amendment has not yet been introduced, but has been through drafting and is now ready for circulation. This means it can be shared with your congressman and Rep. Meadows can begin to gather original cosponsors!

 

We are excited about our chances of moving the Amendment through the House this session, since supporting cosponsor Franks is the chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. This is the subcommittee the PRA will need to go through to reach the full Judiciary Committee, so his leadership there will help to pave a smooth path for its progress.

 

We are also excited about our behind-the-scenes progress in the Senate, and hope to confirm our lead sponsor there very soon.

 

In the newest iteration of the Amendment we have chosen to add a clarifying section to make sure the rights of every parent of a public school student will be protected as they were before the terrible Fields v. Palmdale ruling of the Ninth Circuit in 2005.

 

In that decision, the Court determined that parental rights “end at the school door.†(A later en banc decision of the Ninth Circuit softened the wording, but did not significantly change its meaning.) Such a termination of parental rights every time a child enters school is simply unacceptable.

 

This new section of the Parental Rights Amendment will ensure that parents have “the right to make reasonable choices in public schools for one’s child.†This will preserve the right, for instance, to opt one’s child out of a session the parents might find objectionable. It will not give parents any power over the school’s curriculum or what is taught to anyone else’s child. (The same section also provides an explicit protection of the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schooling.)

 

Things are really happening fast, both with the states and on the national level. Please be sure you do your homework on this important issue and then write your reps. I fear the parental rights amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

eta: This is the text for the federal amendement, provided by HSLDA:

 

 

Updated May, 2013

 

Parental Rights Amendment

To the United States Constitution

 

Section One.

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of

their children is a fundamental right.

 

Section Two.

The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public,

private, religious, or home schools, and th

e right to make reasonable choices within

public schools for one’s own child.

 

Section Three.

The United States or any State sha

ll not infringe these rights without

demonstrating that its governmental interest

as applied to the pers

on is of the highest

order and not otherwise served.

 

Section Four.

This article shall not be construed

to apply to a parental action or

decision that would end life.

 

Section Five.

No treaty may be adopted nor shall

any source of international law be

employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or

apply to the rights guaranteed by this

article.

[fiberdrunk]

One more observation. For the NC amendment, all the republicans voted aye to support the bill; all but one democrat voted in support as well. Curious, isn't it, to see such solidarity?

[Guest larryjones]

fiberdrunk, the bill that passed the NC House was modified to be a study bill. There’s not much to oppose - http://www.ncleg.net/Applications/BillLookUp/LoadBilldocument.aspx?SessionCode=2013&DocNum=5422&SeqNum=0

 

You used the phrase “a wolf in sheep’s clothingâ€. That phrase usually involves deception - disguising something that is known to be harmful as something innocent. Are you implying that someone is being deceptive?

 

I strongly support the federal Parental Rights Amendment (“PRAâ€) and I urge the readers of this blog to fully inform themselves on the issue before making a decision about supporting or opposing parental rights legislation - at the state or federal level. I think this page is a good place to start - http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={97AC9727-7102-4289-82F7-9F6D89D62C83}.

 

I did start watching the Deborah Stevenson video about the CRC. She says that we can get 60 senators to block ratification but I don't know if that's the case. It actually only takes 34 and we have been able to do that. But even without ratification, the Supreme Court has looked to the CRC for support of its decisions. The PRA would prevent the CRC from being interpreted or applied to the rights protected by the PRA.

[fiberdrunk]

Thanks for pointing out that it has shifted to (or added) a study. I missed that. (eta: read it here.) I'm relieved that they're looking into it more.

 

I had originally supported the federal parental amendment on the grounds you mentioned, thinking it would give protection from CRC. But parts of the bill are so vague that I don't trust our gov't won't abuse it.

 

I think no matter what side of the issue we are on, our goal is the same: less government interference in our family and homeschooling lives. We just don't agree on whether a parental rights amendment is the best path to take or not to accomplish this. I totally agree that we all have to do our homework and study both sides of the issue. It's why I posted in the first place. HSLDA has pretty much dominated this issue in the arena of public opinion (not criticizing here at all). I've tried to include links to both sides since the first post.

[jhschool]

I would be more comfortable with a parental bill that said:

 

"The government shall not infringe on the right of parents to educate and raise their

own children as they see fit. The government shall not impose its rule within the family unit."

 

Of course, if there were abuse that would be a separate criminal offense, and the parents

can be prosecuted. But it would be up to the government to prove guilt, etc. Once someone does

something criminal which is already a crime in the law, then they can be prosecuted. But if someone

does not commit a crime, then the government should leave parents alone. It should not be that

"parents have the right to raise their children unless the government decides that its interest is not

being served." The government could decide that its interest is not being served in many, many ways,

including homeschooling, vaccinations, medical & dental checkups, religion, etc.

 

I think there should be a parental rights law. It should state parental rights without the "except when

the government decides its interest is not being met" bit. They should cut that out.

[Guest larryjones]

jhschool,

 

Constitutional lawyers carefully chose the wording of the Parental Rights Amendment (“PRAâ€). The wording means something to those in the legal profession because the words have been taken from previous U.S. Supreme Court cases. The PRA doesn’t say anything close to "except when the government decides its interest is not being met". The sentence you’re referring to says “The United States or any State shall not infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.†The meaning of that sentence has been discussed earlier in this discussion. You can also read an annotated version of the PRA here - http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?SEC={DE675888-E60A-4219-8A5E-000083244D13}&Type=B_BASIC&persistdesign=none

[Guest larryjones]

Most of us that have read the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence understand that the federal government does not grant the rights defined in the Constitution, but that those rights are inalienable and are not to be infringed upon by the government. To say that the PRA should be opposed because it acknowledges that the government grants parental rights is a non sequitir. The PRA is an amendment similar to the first eight. When I look at the current gun control debate, I'm glad that the 2nd amendment is in place. The federal government does not grant individuals the right to bear arms but if it wants to infringe on that right it has to have a compelling interest to do so. Parental rights should be protected in the same way and ratifying the PRA will help to do that. Of course, citizens will still have to exercise and fight to protect parental rights, but they will have a stronger legal basis for doing so.

[momacacia]

What I find so interesting as a former constitutional attorney who worked alongside Farris on some issues, is that he was always vehemently against a federal marriage amendment for some of the very same reasons mentioned earlier in this thread about the PRA. But a few years later, he comes out all hot to trot for a PRA. I can never put it together why he thinks there should be an amendment for one and not the other, particularly when the marriage laws were/are more imminently threatened than parental rights.

 

Sure, his organization would have a difficult time fundraising on a marriage amendment issue, while they can easily fundraise on a PRA, and focus on a marriage amendment would dilute the attention of those who otherwise support his organization, but the level and reasoning of his opposition to that really confuses me when I see him pushing the PRA. :rolleyes: But this is just a person quibble of mine, and I really have a thing for consistency.

[Guest larryjones]

momacacia, I'd be interested to hear Dr. Farris' views on a federal marriage amendment. Can you reference any documents and/or articles he's written indicating why he does not support a federal marriage amendment?

[fiberdrunk]

The federal version of the parental rights amendment has been resurrected (HJ Res 50). You can see it on GovTrack and Popvox. I, personally, will be encouraging my reps to oppose it, for I feel parental rights are already an unalienable right. According to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, any power concerning the rights of parents and children are reserved to the States respectively or to the people, where it belongs. This amendment will put those rights under federal jurisdiction.

 

As attorney Deborah Stevens stated on her NHELD website, "If a Constitutional Amendment is enacted, the power of parents to affect reduction and elimination of interference with those rights is substantially weakened when power to “interpret†that Constitutional provision is given to a handful of justices politically appointed for life sitting on the United States Supreme Court."

 

Please consider all possible consequences of a parental rights amendment. As history shows us, government tends to like to grow its own powers while diminishing ours. I think this will enable a massive transfer of power from parents TO the federal government if it goes through, and will not be the protection from government so many seem to think it will be.

[fiberdrunk]

Publius Huldah has written a new fantastic article about why parental rights amendments aren't such a good thing.  Please read!

 

Parental Rights Act: Congressmen Are Selling You and Your Kids Out to Big Government

eta:  corrected link

Edited July 8, 2013 by fiberdrunk

[Ravin]

The U.S. constitution does not need an amendment to ensure parental rights. It already does, as a fundamental liberty interest under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments. Intervening in the family unit is within the general police powers of the States, but they can only do so if their interest is a compelling one and they do so in a manner which ensures due process for all parents and respects the fundamental rights of both parents and children (children also have a fundamental liberty interest in the association of their parents), subject to examination under strict scrutiny (the most exacting level of review in the appellate justice system).

[fiberdrunk]

Michael Farris of HSLDA has written a rebuttal to Publius Huldah's article.  I'll leave it to each reader to decide whether he was successful.

 

Michael Farris Of HSLDA Responds To Publius Huldah’s Critique Of The Parental Rights Amendment

 

[Guest inoubliable]

Whoa. Heavy thread from someone with less than 50 posts. 

[fiberdrunk]

Whoa. Heavy thread from someone with less than 50 posts. 

 

Well, you gotta start somewhere, right?

[Dana]

No. You really don't.

 

The idea with starting somewhere is that you also post on other topics, not just cut and paste from other locations. Let it die.

 

If you want to post on other topics, welcome. This is beyond boring.

[Guest inoubliable]

Well, you gotta start somewhere, right?

 

*snort, snort*

Good luck. 

[Guest inoubliable]

No. You really don't.

 

The idea with starting somewhere is that you also post on other topics, not just cut and paste from other locations. Let it die.

 

If you want to post on other topics, welcome. This is beyond boring.

 

You hit it. Brand new member, lots of copy/paste and linkage, HSLDA quoting. Eh. Pings my troll-dar. 

OP, welcome to the Hive. I hope you can find another topic to participate in. 

[LucyStoner]

Michael Ferris is successful at what exactly?  Fundraising?  Propaganda?  Fear mongering?  Sure.  At forming a compelling case for amending the constitution?   Not so much.  

[fiberdrunk]

No. You really don't.

 

The idea with starting somewhere is that you also post on other topics, not just cut and paste from other locations. Let it die.

 

If you want to post on other topics, welcome. This is beyond boring.

Well, I've actually been a member of this forum since 2011 and have indeed posted on other topics before this, even if it doesn't look like my message count is very high.  I don't have a lot of time for social media.  I keep posting on this thread because it's important since it will affect all familes.  But to any who find it "boring," you really don't have to read it.  No one is forcing you to click on this thread.

[WishboneDawn]

You hit it. Brand new member, lots of copy/paste and linkage, HSLDA quoting. Eh. Pings my troll-dar.

OP, welcome to the Hive. I hope you can find another topic to participate in.

If something truly pings your "troll-dar", please report it and leave it up to the mods to deal with.

 

Posts implying a poster is a troll are generally distracting and damaging and in this case come closer to breaking board rules then anything else in this thread.

[WishboneDawn]

.

[WishboneDawn]

No. You really don't.

 

The idea with starting somewhere is that you also post on other topics, not just cut and paste from other locations. Let it die.

 

If you want to post on other topics, welcome. This is beyond boring.

Can you please quote the forum rules that forbid someone with a low post count from starting threads on heavy topics?

 

In a strict sense this forum belongs to SWB and if this thread bothered her she or the mods would have dealt with it. In a large, looser sense this forum belongs to the wider community off members and that includes the OP, those who responded to her, those who have quietly read workout complaint, and me (who quite enjoyed the posts of LarryJones in particular). If it doesn't float your boat, move on to another thread.

 

Honestly, I thought a commonly held definition of trolling was posts containing snark and sarcasm that address meant to distract and derail conversation. If that's the case, there's been some of that her but it certainly hasn't come from the OP.

[WishboneDawn]

Well, I've actually been a member of this forum since 2011 and have indeed posted on other topics before this, even if it doesn't look like my message count is very high. I don't have a lot of time for social media. I keep posting on this thread because it's important since it will affect all familes. But to any who find it "boring," you really don't have to read it. No one is forcing you to click on this thread.

I have no dog in this fight as I'm Canadian (I suspect I'd be opposing your view if I did :D) but I have found this thread really interesting. Thanks for starting it. :)

[fiberdrunk]

Thank you, WishboneDawn!

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Got to agree with Dawn. Don't throw the word "troll" around unless you're emailing the mods.

 

SWB

[fiberdrunk]

Here's a new article by Publius Huldah.  Since PRA proponents claim the PRA will give protection from the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, Publius shows how international treaties have no effect in the U.S., even when ratified by the Senate.  She walks through the steps for how this is so.

 

Treaties: When Are They Part Of “The Supreme Law Of The Land�

 

Do not forget: The federal government may not lawfully circumvent the U.S. Constitution by international treaties.  It may NOT do by Treaty what it is not permitted to do by the U.S. Constitution.

 

 

 

[fiberdrunk]

A direct follow-up by Publius to Michael Farris' article:

Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable?

I like how she points out the distinction between unalienable and fundamental rights.  She then directly refutes Michael Farris' post point by point.  This is really the heart of the whole discussion, whether a PRA is necessary or even harmful.

[fiberdrunk]

The above article was also posted a week ago on Freedom Outpost, though I didn't realize it.  The editor of Freedom Outpost had some additional information regarding Michael Farris' responses to Publius Huldah.  I'll include them below:

 

 

Editor’s Note: Before you get into Publius Huldah’s response, there is a bit of information that is necessary for readers to know. As you recall, Publius Huldah posted an article on the issue of the Parental Rights Amendment and then subsequently we were contacted by Michael Farris’ spokesman to see if we might post a response, which we did here. When Mr. Farris’ spokesman realized that commenters saw what I saw, namely an attack on Publius Huldah and self-promotion, I received the following email response:

“Several folks on your blog have asked for clarification specific to the issues, and Mr. Farris’ response is seen as more of an attack on PH than certainly was intended. Would you be amenable to another response that does not address PH at all, but which goes point-by-point through her concerns?

 

If you would be willing to consider posting it, I will get to work on securing that for you. I believe it would benefit both of us and your readers for us to be clearer on the issues she has raised.

Thank you for your consideration, and for providing a forum for this discussion. You and I disagree on the PRA, but I hope we will continue to do so agreeably (as is my perception at least. I hope it is yours as well).â€

I replied and told him that would be acceptable, but since Mr. Farris is a litigator, perhaps he should have taken this course of action in the first place and told him he would need to wait until Publius Huldah had responded to Mr. Farris’ article. I was told by Farris’ spokesman it was reasonable and he asked for Publius Huldah’s contact information, which I was told not to give out (by the way, anyone can go to her site and contact her through the site). Once contact information was turned down, I then received the following email response:

“I have spoken again with Mike Farris, and we simply cannot continue to engage with someone claiming to be a lawyer but refusing to identify herself or provide verifiable credentials. I understand you are convinced she is a lawyer, but we have only her word for it.

Anonymity and a claim to be a lawyer are incompatible with each other.

If we cannot verify by name that she has a license to practice law, we simply cannot continue this debate in this forum.

I regret that we must ask this. I, like you, was looking forward to the debate. But a request for credentials from the outset is not unreasonable. Mr. Farris’ credentials are already on the table.

I hope you will understand.â€

I’m not going to tell people what to think about this, but I do find that Publius Huldah’s credentials were not an issue for Mr. Farris to respond to in the first article nor were they an issue when there was an agreement to follow up with a second response. However, this makes one wonder if you don’t provide certain credentials, does Mr. Farris not think it worthy of his time to engage you about this subject? I’ll let the reader decide. Without further ado, Publius Huldah’s response to Michael Farris.

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/parental-rights-god-given-and-unalienable-or-government-granted-and-revocable/#ixzz2aNYNfqXp