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


If politicians introduced a bill mandating the slaughter of all human babies under the age of two years; but called it, "The Little Babies Protection Act," establishment conservatives and unthinking people all over the Country would be clamoring for its passage.

We have become a shallow and easily deceived people. If it sounds good on the surface, we are all for it. We assume the proposal will live up to its name. 1 We don't trouble ourselves to actually read proposals and analyze them before we clamor for passage.

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.

In order to understand this, you must first learn about "enumerated powers".

Enumerated Powers

When WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established the Constitution for the United States, We listed, itemized - enumerated - every power WE delegated to each branch of the federal government over the Country at Large. All other powers were retained by The States or The People.

James Madison, Father of our Constitution, says in Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end):

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." [boldface mine]

Do you see? We delegated only "few and defined" powers to the federal government over the Country at Large. These are the "enumerated powers" actually listed in the Constitution. 2

These enumerated powers over the Country at Large concern:

  • Military defense, international commerce & relations;
  • Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;
  • Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
  • With some Amendments, protect certain civil rights and voting rights.

It is only with respect to the "enumerated powers" that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at Large. All other powers are "reserved to the several States" and The People. 3

So! Where in the Constitution did WE THE PEOPLE delegate to the federal government power over children and their care and upbringing? We didn't. Accordingly, it has no lawful authority over these objects.

Thus, any federal law, treaty 4, executive order, agency rule, or court opinion which pretends to exercise such power over children is unconstitutional as outside the scope of enumerated powers delegated to the federal government for the Country at Large. 5

See? This is all very simple.

So then, how does the federal government go about obtaining lawful authority over the care and upbringing of children? By means of lies, trickery and deceit:

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.

Here is the PRA which has been introduced in the current Session of Congress: H.J. Res. 50

Here is a list of House sponsors of the PRA in this Session of Congress. Form delegations and go see your Representatives. Instruct them! I bet they never read it before they endorsed it.

Put Not Your Trust in Princes

People! Your blind trust in charlatans and politicians is destroying us. They pretend to be what they are not in order to deceive you. Stop flaunting your blind trust as a mark of virtue. Blind trust in humans is irresponsible – it is not a virtue. PH

Endnotes:

1 E.g., we assume the "Balanced Budget" Amendment is about curtailing federal spending. Since we don't look behind the name, we don't know that the BBA is really about eliminating the enumerated powers limitation on spending & legalizing what is now unconstitutional spending.

2 See: Congress' Enumerated Powers, the President's Enumerated Powers, & the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts.

3 Read the Tenth Amendment!

4 parental rights.org has been using the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into believing that only the PRA can save them from the UN Declaration.

You must learn about the treaty making powers of the United States. The President and Senate may not lawfully circumvent the Constitution by international treaties – they may not do by treaty what they are forbidden to do by the Constitution. Since the Constitution delegates NO powers over children to the federal government, they may not lawfully circumvent the Constitution by ratifying the UN Declaration. These 2 papers explain the treaty-making power.

It is the PRA which would give the federal government lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration! So the PRA is a monstrous deception.

5 Accordingly, they are proper objects of nullification.

6 Parental rights.org periodically changes the text of their proposed PRA. The version set forth herein was copied from their website during June 2013.

7 To my friends in the Ayn Rand camp: These are historical facts – the Bible says what it says and our Framers believed it. Ayn Rand had no argument with the Natural Law Principle that parents have the responsibility of raising their own children.

8 The supreme Court looked at the word, "liberty" in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and said it means "privacy"; and "privacy" means "women may kill their unborn babies"! A short time later, they looked at the same word and decided that it means, "homosexual sex is a liberty right"! Do you see? That Court treats the 14th Amendment as Marquis de Sade's play dough.

And look at how that Court has butchered the First Amendment: That Amendment says, in part: "Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech…"

Since speech control is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large; and since all legislative Powers granted by our Constitution are vested in Congress (Art. I, Sec. 1); neither the Executive nor Judicial Branches have power over "speech" for the Country at Large.

Regulation of speech is reserved to the States and the People (10th Amendment).
The States exercised this retained power by means of State laws against defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private life, etc., etc.

Yet the supreme Court treats the First Amendment as the source of our right to free speech, and they decide what speech is "protected" by the First Amendment and what speech is "not protected" by the First Amendment. If the former, you may say it; if the latter, you may not say it. The supreme Court has usurped power to censor our speech!

So! In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Westboro Baptists picketed, with vile and defamatory signs, the funeral of an American Soldier who was killed in action. The bereaved Father filed a lawsuit under various State Laws such as defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.

The Jury found for the Father and held Westboro liable for $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.

But the supreme Court overturned the Jury Verdict and said that the Westboro Baptists had a "right" protected by the First Amendment to spew their malice at this young soldier's funeral, and it mowed down the State laws which made such defamatory speech actionable.

This is how the supreme Court construes an Amendment which merely prohibits CONGRESS from making laws restricting speech!

The federal government has no lawful authority over speech in the Country at Large! Yet those lawless judges on the supreme Court have also seized power to forbid students from leading Christian prayers in the public schools!

9 Jill Stanek is an RN who worked in the Labor & Delivery Department in an Illinois hospital where aborted babies born alive were left to die. Read her article where she proves that our President opposed Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama wanted the babies to die. How can you put YOUR children in the hands of judges this man nominates?

UPDATE: Michael Farris has requested the opportunity to speak to Publius Huldah's critique of his Parental Rights Amendment. You can read his critique here.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, Tea Party Community & Twitter.

You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.


Print Friendly





Comments

comments

About Publius Huldah
Lawyer, philosopher & logician. Strict constructionist of the U.S. Constitution. Passionate about The Federalist Papers (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison & John Jay), restoring constitutional government, The Bible, the writings of Ayn Rand, & the following: There is no such thing as Jew & Greek, slave & freeman, male & female, black person & white person; for we are all one person in Christ Jesus. She also writes legal and Constitutional commentary at her site: Publius-Huldah
  • vowles_becki

    PRA does have parents right at heart. This will clarify, if you have ? contact them directly. Also read the UNCRC and you will understand the threat and where it comes from.
    http://www.parentalrights.org/vertical/Sites/%7BC49108C5-0630-467E-9B9B-B1FA31A72320%7D/uploads/The_Parental_Rights_Amendment_FAQs.pdf

  • vowles_becki

    PRA does have the parents best interest at heart and if you read this it should clarify that for you. If you have doubts or concerns contact them directly.
    http://www.parentalrights.org/vertical/Sites/%7BC49108C5-0630-467E-9B9B-B1FA31A72320%7D/uploads/The_Parental_Rights_Amendment_FAQs.pdf

  • Guest

    PRA does have the parents best interest at heart and if you read this it should clarify that for you. If you have doubts contact them directly. We need to be doing or own checking and homework.
    http://www.parentalrights.org/vertical/Sites/%7BC49108C5-0630-467E-9B9B-B1FA31A72320%7D/uploads/The_Parental_Rights_Amendment_FAQs.pdf

  • http://www.TheChristianGeek.net/ Raul Ybarra

    As a homeschool dad, this is a subject that is very near and dear to me. I've taken the time to do a bit of research over the last couple of days before voicing an opinion. In particular, I took the time to read the proposed amendment and also to take apart the specific language. Though, I'm not a lawyer, I've dealt with legal and regulatory affairs for many years in both the domestic and international market and have learned in that time that technical legal language doesn't always mean what the layman may think.

    That has proven to be the case here. The part is causing the greatest consternation, Section 3, reads: "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."

    That last phrase, "is of the highest order and not otherwise served," is what is particularly important. It has specific legal meaning that is the exact opposite of what many laymen (including myself a few days ago) would have expected. This language forces what is known as "Strict Scrutiny" to be applied to interpretation by the courts. This actually restricts the government from playing "loose" with the meaning of the language. I.e. it reduces vagueness, not increases it.

    Strict Scrutiny places the burden on the government to prove that a law that restricts the rights affirmed (not established) by the amendment is absolutely necessary - i.e. at the level of saving lives, national security, etc. The gov't also has to demonstrate the law is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means of achieving the objective.

    Without this language, the law would be subject to Rational Basis Review, where the decision is based on whether the law is a rational function of the government. I understand that in this case the burden of proof would be on the person(s) challenging the law and that the judge also has more leeway in interpreting.

    That's the layman explanation. I should have recognized the language, since it is similar to language I've seen used regarding the protection of religious rights in college made by FIRE (an excellent org, but outside this scope).

    Something else to think about... this amendment was drafted - at least in part - by Mike Farris of the HSLDA. That is a name and organization that should be familiar to every homeschool family. Few organization or people have done more to preserve parents rights. I'm not saying that one should blindly accept their argument, but their history and track record command the respect of honest investigation before attacking them. And that the attacks be aimed at the language of the law rather than the individuals (as I've seen elsewhere in my research). I certainly don't agree with all his stances - e.g. his position with young earth creationism - but he is deserving of respect and a Christ-like attitude in that disagreement.

    Someone I admire likes to say, "Words mean things." He's right. Find out what the words mean before deciding to oppose OR support this.

  • Patriotsam

    Publius Huldah, a “goon” for the UN? You people are living in never, never
    land. Not a one of you can dispute the facts in her article. All you can do is
    call her names. Name calling is all Progressives can do since they can’t think.

    I believe not a one of you have read her article even though a 6th
    grader can understand it. A short tripthru her website will show you exactly where PH stands on the UN.

    All progressives want to do is destroy this country and become slaves of men instead of being FREE under GOD. You complain that you were a victim from Government lies and yet you want to give the government constitutional authority over your children by allowing the SC to distort the ambiguous amendment you support.

    May GOD have mercy on your stupidity, because the government
    certainly will not.

  • http://www.undertherainbow.us Ralyn Speerly Schraceo

    Apparently the author of this article is a UNCRC goon - who DOES really want to force parents to give up their children up to the govt & UN. Courts have ruled in recent years that parental rights is no longer a fundamental right and that the govt has the power to dictate how you can raise your kids - and if you don't agree with them they can steal your kids. TONS of parents are already fighting the govt for wrongful theft of their children. I was a victim of the govt - they totally destroyed my family with outright lies and used illegal means to steal them.

    And another thing - Obama has promised to sign and ratify the UNCRC - the author has apparently been hiding under a rock, because they have been doing just about everything against the Constitution these days.

  • MichaelRamey

    A full response to the legal concerns raised here is available at http://4pra.is/answer. I hope those concerned by this article will take the time to read and consider it.

  • v steve

    So! Where in the Constitution did WE THE PEOPLE delegate to the federal government power over children and their care and upbringing?

    So! where in the Constitution did WE THE PEOPLE delegate to the federal government the power over education, we didn`t but they have it through the Federal Department of Education. Through the department of Education government controls our Children they can say what will be taught and what won`t be taught. Time to ABOLISH the Federal Department of Education NOW!

    For what the Federal Department of Education is doing to education and to our children it`s not worth their money.

    The longer you take from the Government the more you are enslaved.

    • http://www.undertherainbow.us Ralyn Speerly Schraceo

      You left out a bunch - courts have actually ruled that parental rights is no longer a fundamental right. The govt agencies are stealing children from parents without any real grounds then abusing the children - I have groups full of parents, including myself that this has happened to. There's the forced vaccines, forced deadly chemo & other dangerous drugs instead of real natural cures and more. The Parental Rights Amendment was designed to stop this and the UNCRC.

  • Mark Zander

    Do you see that section 4 permits the government to kill your child if it deems them too much of a burden on society?

    • RobW_MI

      No it doesn't! It states "a *parental* action or decision". That means, for example, that this amendment could not be used to defend a parent's decision to force an abortion on a minor child, etc.

      We need to deal with serious issues seriously.

    • MichaelRamey

      The operative phrase in Section Four - the only action in Section Four - is "shall not be construed to apply." How can an amendment, by not applying, change anything?

  • amanda

    There are many cases of children who don't like the decisions of their parents make for them or the boundaries put in place to protect and discipline them have actually been removed from their parent's care and placed in foster homes or state institutions with no just cause. The courts are overstepping their Constitutional authority--children are being harmed and families ripped apart. The PRA is intended to stop this and protect the right of parents to raise their children without government interference. This article cites some reasons to be concerned about eroding parental rights and why we need the PRA. The author of this article is seriously misguided!!!!

    • Patriotsam

      And the PRA puts parental rights under the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts because of Art. III, Sec. 2 as PH points out in her paper AND you want to give the blacked robed idiots legal control of your children. Open your eyes.

  • tandrb

    It sounds like we want the same thing but Publius Huldah is
    interpreting the Parental Rights Amendment entirely the wrong way. Its not
    another wild scheme by Obama and his cronies to secretly take over our rights
    as parents as some comments have eluded to. Rather the amendment is written by one of the most conservative men
    that I know, whom is a supporter of the rights for citizens of the US,
    including Parents rights for the children. He is not for big government. Before
    you decide yes or no about this amendment, read Michael Farris's reply to
    Publius Huldah. http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/07/michael-farris-of-hslda-reponds-to-publius-huldahs-critique-of-the-parental-rights-amendment/