Post by Marya Dabrowski on Oct 12, 2017 8:33:23 GMT -5
A mom in my home school group forwarded an email alert from Parental Rights. org saying that NOW is the time needed for the Parental Rights Amendment.
parentalrights.org/dwyer/
“The reason parent-child relationships exist is because the State confers legal parenthood…”
So says James Dwyer, and he’s no bumbling statist hack. Dwyer is a respected law professor at the prestigious College of William and Mary, America’s second-oldest college (after Harvard). He actually believes your parental rights literally come from the State. And you and I both know that what the State can give, the State can take away.
But with his credentials, Dwyer’s radical ideas will be heard. The need to pass a Parental Rights Amendment to protect our families from this philosophy has never been greater. I know it sounds cliché, but this really is a video you have to see!
Watch Video! Please share this warning and urge your friends to sign up at ParentalRights.org to be the voice of reason protecting children by empowering parents!
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research"
But to me the PRA sounded insidious, here's what I wrote back...
"Hello,
I admit I'm a bear of little brain, but this Parental Rights Amendment sounded as if it would do the exact opposite of what it says. If we are letting the Federal Government tell us that we have the right to parent, wouldn't the Federal Government be able then to tell us we can NOT parent? Why do we need the gov. to confer or acknowledge a right we already have, given by God? Aren't we giving the government the authority to say what is or isn't our right by this amendment? If they are granting us parenting rights, then they can then take them away.
So I did a little research.
Turns out I'm correct. (The fact that Lindsay Graham introduced it should have been the biggest red flag ever.)
See link or Here for two different articles. Sorry about the formatting, it happened when I copied and pasted.
"The so-called "Parental Rights" Amendment
Let us now read it. Here it is from the website of the deceptively named, parentalrights.org:6
"SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.
SECTION 2
The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one's child.
SECTION 3
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
SECTION 4
This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.
SECTION 5
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."
Look at Section 3! We will go through each section. But first, two general observations:
1. Parents have Responsibilities to their children, not "rights" over them.
The Creator God who - as recognized by the Signers of our Declaration of Independence - endowed us with unalienable Rights; also assigned to parents specific responsibilities to their children. 7 Among these are:
Provision for children: 2 Corinthians 12:14; Proverbs 13:22; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.
Education and moral instruction of children: Proverbs 1:8-9, 6:20-21, 13:1, 22:6 & 23:19-22; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:9-10 & 6:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 1:5 & 3:15-17.
Discipline of children: Proverbs 13: 24, 15:5, 19:18, 22:15, 23:12-14, 29:15-17; Hebrews 12:5-11; Colossians 3:21.
Parents are supposed to provide for, care for, teach, protect, and educate their children. NOT civil government!
2. The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts
Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, enumerates the powers of the federal courts:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…"
"Judicial Power" refers to the power of courts to hear and decide cases.
Amendments are part of the Constitution. Thus, federal courts have power to decide issues addressed by Amendments.
The PRA would transform "families" and "children" from matters over which the federal government now has no lawful authority to matters under the total control of the federal government.
The PRA is a delegation of lawmaking power over families and children to the federal government. Congress may make whatever laws it pleases pertaining to YOUR children; the Executive Branch may issue whatever rules or orders it pleases pertaining to YOUR children – and under Section 3 of the PRA, federal judges will decide whether these laws, orders & rules serve the government's interest. If so, you lose.
Lawsuits involving these matters would become cases "arising under this Constitution", or "Laws of the United States", or "Treaties", which would ultimately be decided by five (5) judges on the supreme Court. The authority of millions and millions of American parents would be transferred to five (5) judges on the supreme Court.
That Court has a long history of perverting every word of our Constitution it touches. 8 It is suicidal to transfer Family Authority to that Court.
Let us now look at each section of the PRA:
"Section 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right."
Just as the supreme Court sees the First Amendment as the source of our right to free speech, and they decide what speech is protected by that Amendment and what speech is not, 8 so it will see the PRA as the source of "parental rights", and they will decide what "rights" parents have and what "rights" they do not have.
Consider also: Do the words "upbringing" or "care" in Section 1 include religious training, discipline, diet, medical treatment, and whether the child may wield a hoe in the family garden? What does it mean that these are not listed? That parents have no "rights" regarding these issues? The supreme Court will decide what it means.
"Section 2: The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one's child."
What is not included in the parental right to direct education? What is a "reasonable" choice? Who decides what is not included and what choices are "reasonable"? Federal judges decide.
"Section 3: Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served."
Do you understand this Section? Whatever "parental rights" you think you have will be infringed by the federal government or the State governments if they have a good reason for it. Federal judges will decide whether the federal or State governments have a good reason to infringe your "parental rights".
"Section 4: This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life."
What? Does this mean that parents retained the "right" to make these decisions? Or does it mean that the PRA does not "protect" that right, hence parents no longer have it?
I suggest to you that federal courts will construe this section to mean that parents will no longer be permitted to make decisions about terminating or continuing medical care for their seriously ill, injured , or "defective" (Downs' syndrome, birth defects, etc.) children.
Do not forget: We elected as President a man who supports the murder of little babies who survive abortions.
9 Is this man going to appoint federal judges who disagree with the killing of children?
"Section 5: 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."
The PRA does not stop the President and Senate from ratifying the UN Declaration on The Rights of the Child.
NO RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED BY THE PRA! You cannot name one "parental right" which cannot be voided if the federal or state government shows federal judges that the government has an interest in voiding the right.
Further, since the PRA makes federal control of children an enumerated power, it
is the PRA itself which would give the U.S. Senate constitutional authority to ratify the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child!
The PRA is monstrously deceitful."
AND:
"In name, it appears as though it would enshrine the fundamental and inalienable authority of parents over their children into the basic framework of American law. But the so-called Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) is hardly the pro-freedom amendment to the U.S. Constitution that its creators claim it is, as it actually threatens to transfer the inviolable jurisdiction of parental authority over children to the federal government.
Though many people today are unaware of it, America's founding fathers recognized that parents have a God-given responsibility to care for and protect their children. This responsibility is not a "right" granted to parents by the federal government, but rather a mandate built into the natural order that cannot be revoked or altered in any way by outside forces, including the federal government.
Because of this, the founding fathers crafted what we now know as the Constitution, which clearly enumerates, or spells out, the specific powers that We the People have delegated to the federal government -- and these powers do not include any authority whatsoever over children. In fact, the federal government has very little power over anything, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
This is an important concept that you must understand in order to see why the PRA is problematic. As spelled out in immense detail by Publius Huldah over at FreedomOutpost.com, passage of the PRA would essentially place parental authority under the ultimate jurisdiction of the federal government rather than the God of the universe, granting the Supreme Court the power to rule over matters involving such authority.
"The name, 'parental rights amendment' (PRA), sounds so good! But it actually strips parents of their God-delegated authority over their children, and transfers that authority to the federal government," writes Huldah. "The PRA would transform 'families' and 'children' from matters over which the federal government now has no lawful authority to matters under the total control of the federal government."
Most of the controversy stems from Section 3 of the PRA, which dictates that both federal and state governments can override or infringe parental authority if it serves the "highest order" of government interests. This disturbing and vague language would most assuredly open up a Pandora's box of government authoritarianism, in which federal judges would be free to redefine the terms of parental authority at whim, as long as it serves the "highest order."
"The PRA is a delegation of lawmaking power over families and children to the federal government," adds Huldah. "Congress may make whatever laws it pleases pertaining to YOUR children; the Executive Branch may issue whatever rules or orders it pleases pertaining to YOUR children -- and under Section 3 of the PRA, federal judges will decide whether these laws, orders & rules serve the government's interest. If so, you lose."
Be sure to read Huldah's thorough analysis of this Trojan horse amendment:
freedomoutpost.com"
Just beware wolves in sheep's clothing. "
parentalrights.org/dwyer/
“The reason parent-child relationships exist is because the State confers legal parenthood…”
So says James Dwyer, and he’s no bumbling statist hack. Dwyer is a respected law professor at the prestigious College of William and Mary, America’s second-oldest college (after Harvard). He actually believes your parental rights literally come from the State. And you and I both know that what the State can give, the State can take away.
But with his credentials, Dwyer’s radical ideas will be heard. The need to pass a Parental Rights Amendment to protect our families from this philosophy has never been greater. I know it sounds cliché, but this really is a video you have to see!
Watch Video! Please share this warning and urge your friends to sign up at ParentalRights.org to be the voice of reason protecting children by empowering parents!
Sincerely,
Michael Ramey
Director of Communications & Research"
But to me the PRA sounded insidious, here's what I wrote back...
"Hello,
I admit I'm a bear of little brain, but this Parental Rights Amendment sounded as if it would do the exact opposite of what it says. If we are letting the Federal Government tell us that we have the right to parent, wouldn't the Federal Government be able then to tell us we can NOT parent? Why do we need the gov. to confer or acknowledge a right we already have, given by God? Aren't we giving the government the authority to say what is or isn't our right by this amendment? If they are granting us parenting rights, then they can then take them away.
So I did a little research.
Turns out I'm correct. (The fact that Lindsay Graham introduced it should have been the biggest red flag ever.)
See link or Here for two different articles. Sorry about the formatting, it happened when I copied and pasted.
"The so-called "Parental Rights" Amendment
Let us now read it. Here it is from the website of the deceptively named, parentalrights.org:6
"SECTION 1
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.
SECTION 2
The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one's child.
SECTION 3
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
SECTION 4
This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.
SECTION 5
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."
Look at Section 3! We will go through each section. But first, two general observations:
1. Parents have Responsibilities to their children, not "rights" over them.
The Creator God who - as recognized by the Signers of our Declaration of Independence - endowed us with unalienable Rights; also assigned to parents specific responsibilities to their children. 7 Among these are:
Provision for children: 2 Corinthians 12:14; Proverbs 13:22; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.
Education and moral instruction of children: Proverbs 1:8-9, 6:20-21, 13:1, 22:6 & 23:19-22; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:9-10 & 6:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 1:5 & 3:15-17.
Discipline of children: Proverbs 13: 24, 15:5, 19:18, 22:15, 23:12-14, 29:15-17; Hebrews 12:5-11; Colossians 3:21.
Parents are supposed to provide for, care for, teach, protect, and educate their children. NOT civil government!
2. The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts
Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, enumerates the powers of the federal courts:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…"
"Judicial Power" refers to the power of courts to hear and decide cases.
Amendments are part of the Constitution. Thus, federal courts have power to decide issues addressed by Amendments.
The PRA would transform "families" and "children" from matters over which the federal government now has no lawful authority to matters under the total control of the federal government.
The PRA is a delegation of lawmaking power over families and children to the federal government. Congress may make whatever laws it pleases pertaining to YOUR children; the Executive Branch may issue whatever rules or orders it pleases pertaining to YOUR children – and under Section 3 of the PRA, federal judges will decide whether these laws, orders & rules serve the government's interest. If so, you lose.
Lawsuits involving these matters would become cases "arising under this Constitution", or "Laws of the United States", or "Treaties", which would ultimately be decided by five (5) judges on the supreme Court. The authority of millions and millions of American parents would be transferred to five (5) judges on the supreme Court.
That Court has a long history of perverting every word of our Constitution it touches. 8 It is suicidal to transfer Family Authority to that Court.
Let us now look at each section of the PRA:
"Section 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right."
Just as the supreme Court sees the First Amendment as the source of our right to free speech, and they decide what speech is protected by that Amendment and what speech is not, 8 so it will see the PRA as the source of "parental rights", and they will decide what "rights" parents have and what "rights" they do not have.
Consider also: Do the words "upbringing" or "care" in Section 1 include religious training, discipline, diet, medical treatment, and whether the child may wield a hoe in the family garden? What does it mean that these are not listed? That parents have no "rights" regarding these issues? The supreme Court will decide what it means.
"Section 2: The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one's child."
What is not included in the parental right to direct education? What is a "reasonable" choice? Who decides what is not included and what choices are "reasonable"? Federal judges decide.
"Section 3: Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served."
Do you understand this Section? Whatever "parental rights" you think you have will be infringed by the federal government or the State governments if they have a good reason for it. Federal judges will decide whether the federal or State governments have a good reason to infringe your "parental rights".
"Section 4: This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life."
What? Does this mean that parents retained the "right" to make these decisions? Or does it mean that the PRA does not "protect" that right, hence parents no longer have it?
I suggest to you that federal courts will construe this section to mean that parents will no longer be permitted to make decisions about terminating or continuing medical care for their seriously ill, injured , or "defective" (Downs' syndrome, birth defects, etc.) children.
Do not forget: We elected as President a man who supports the murder of little babies who survive abortions.
9 Is this man going to appoint federal judges who disagree with the killing of children?
"Section 5: 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."
The PRA does not stop the President and Senate from ratifying the UN Declaration on The Rights of the Child.
NO RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED BY THE PRA! You cannot name one "parental right" which cannot be voided if the federal or state government shows federal judges that the government has an interest in voiding the right.
Further, since the PRA makes federal control of children an enumerated power, it
is the PRA itself which would give the U.S. Senate constitutional authority to ratify the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child!
The PRA is monstrously deceitful."
AND:
"In name, it appears as though it would enshrine the fundamental and inalienable authority of parents over their children into the basic framework of American law. But the so-called Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) is hardly the pro-freedom amendment to the U.S. Constitution that its creators claim it is, as it actually threatens to transfer the inviolable jurisdiction of parental authority over children to the federal government.
Though many people today are unaware of it, America's founding fathers recognized that parents have a God-given responsibility to care for and protect their children. This responsibility is not a "right" granted to parents by the federal government, but rather a mandate built into the natural order that cannot be revoked or altered in any way by outside forces, including the federal government.
Because of this, the founding fathers crafted what we now know as the Constitution, which clearly enumerates, or spells out, the specific powers that We the People have delegated to the federal government -- and these powers do not include any authority whatsoever over children. In fact, the federal government has very little power over anything, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned.
This is an important concept that you must understand in order to see why the PRA is problematic. As spelled out in immense detail by Publius Huldah over at FreedomOutpost.com, passage of the PRA would essentially place parental authority under the ultimate jurisdiction of the federal government rather than the God of the universe, granting the Supreme Court the power to rule over matters involving such authority.
"The name, 'parental rights amendment' (PRA), sounds so good! But it actually strips parents of their God-delegated authority over their children, and transfers that authority to the federal government," writes Huldah. "The PRA would transform 'families' and 'children' from matters over which the federal government now has no lawful authority to matters under the total control of the federal government."
Most of the controversy stems from Section 3 of the PRA, which dictates that both federal and state governments can override or infringe parental authority if it serves the "highest order" of government interests. This disturbing and vague language would most assuredly open up a Pandora's box of government authoritarianism, in which federal judges would be free to redefine the terms of parental authority at whim, as long as it serves the "highest order."
"The PRA is a delegation of lawmaking power over families and children to the federal government," adds Huldah. "Congress may make whatever laws it pleases pertaining to YOUR children; the Executive Branch may issue whatever rules or orders it pleases pertaining to YOUR children -- and under Section 3 of the PRA, federal judges will decide whether these laws, orders & rules serve the government's interest. If so, you lose."
Be sure to read Huldah's thorough analysis of this Trojan horse amendment:
freedomoutpost.com"
Just beware wolves in sheep's clothing. "