Why We Need Enumeration
Volume 98, Program 10
7/2/2010
If a right is protected by the Constitution, is that good enough? It depends…. On today’s Home School Heartbeat, host Mike Farris explains why a Parental Rights Amendment is necessary, even when the right of parents to teach their children is already protected by the Constitution.
Mike Farris:
Ten years ago, Justice Scalia said in the case of Troxel v. Granville that “a right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is among the ‘unalienable Rights’ which the Declaration of Independence proclaims ‘all Men … are endowed by their Creator.’” In other words, parental authority is one of the “unenumerated rights” protected by the Ninth Amendment. Now, if this is true—and it is—then parental rights are already a part of the Constitution. So why do we need a Parental Rights Amendment?
Well, here’s why.
In this same case, Justice Scalia goes on to say, “I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that … infringe upon … that unenumerated right [of parental authority].” In other words, judges cannot grant you protection for your inalienable rights if those rights are not specifically recognized by the Constitution.
Scalia says that if a law passed by Congress or by a state legislature infringes on one of your unenumerated Ninth-Amendment rights, he can’t do anything about it—you’ll have to take it up with the legislature. But if that right is “enumerated” in the Constitution—or in an Amendment—then he, as a judge, can protect it.
Should we need a Parental Rights Amendment? No, we shouldn’t.
But do we need a Parental Rights Amendment in light of what the Supreme Court has done? Unquestionably. I’m Mike Farris.
Showing posts with label Parental rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parental rights. Show all posts
Friday, July 2, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
From Home School Heartbeat
Inalienable = Fundamental
Are “fundamental rights” the same as the Declaration of Independence’s “unalienable rights”? Today on Home School Heartbeat, host Mike Farris responds to another criticism of the Parental Rights Amendment by digging into the historical record.
Mike Farris:
I’ve heard criticism leveled at the Parental Rights Amendment because it calls parental rights “fundamental” instead of “inalienable.” This objection states that the term “fundamental rights” was recently invented by the Supreme Court and is not from the era of the Founding Fathers.
Well, the historical record shows to the contrary. For example, in 1786, James Madison, who’s the “father of the Constitution,” wrote of the people’s “fundamental right of choosing their own legislators.”
And the anti-federalists, who campaigned effectively for a bill of rights, often employed the term “fundamental rights” to describe what was missing from our Constitution.
Take for example Letters from a Federal Farmer No. 16, penned in 1788. It repeatedly uses the term “fundamental rights” in reference to trial by jury, habeas corpus, and freedom of the press.
The anti-federalists argued that these rights should be spelled out, and the plain historical fact is that they won. The outcome of that argument gave us the First Amendment.
Even in more recent Supreme Court decisions, the overwhelming view is that “fundamental rights” describe all of our basic liberties—those rights which may never be taken away by government.
The Parental Rights Amendment states that the liberty of parents to direct their children's upbringing and education is a fundamental right. Which, historically, means exactly the same thing as an “inalienable” right. It’s the perfect language to use in amending our Constitution. I’m Mike Farris.
Are “fundamental rights” the same as the Declaration of Independence’s “unalienable rights”? Today on Home School Heartbeat, host Mike Farris responds to another criticism of the Parental Rights Amendment by digging into the historical record.
Mike Farris:
I’ve heard criticism leveled at the Parental Rights Amendment because it calls parental rights “fundamental” instead of “inalienable.” This objection states that the term “fundamental rights” was recently invented by the Supreme Court and is not from the era of the Founding Fathers.
Well, the historical record shows to the contrary. For example, in 1786, James Madison, who’s the “father of the Constitution,” wrote of the people’s “fundamental right of choosing their own legislators.”
And the anti-federalists, who campaigned effectively for a bill of rights, often employed the term “fundamental rights” to describe what was missing from our Constitution.
Take for example Letters from a Federal Farmer No. 16, penned in 1788. It repeatedly uses the term “fundamental rights” in reference to trial by jury, habeas corpus, and freedom of the press.
The anti-federalists argued that these rights should be spelled out, and the plain historical fact is that they won. The outcome of that argument gave us the First Amendment.
Even in more recent Supreme Court decisions, the overwhelming view is that “fundamental rights” describe all of our basic liberties—those rights which may never be taken away by government.
The Parental Rights Amendment states that the liberty of parents to direct their children's upbringing and education is a fundamental right. Which, historically, means exactly the same thing as an “inalienable” right. It’s the perfect language to use in amending our Constitution. I’m Mike Farris.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Supreme Court Again Cites CRC in Overriding American Law
by Michael Farris
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that juvenile felons cannot be sentenced to life in prison without parole in non-homicide cases. This stands as another example of the all-too-common practice of federal judges substituting their political judgments for that of state legislators.
In addition, the Supreme Court, in the process of reaching this decision, once again used the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a guide to interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
As Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, international laws “are irrelevant to the meaning of our Constitution or the Court’s discernment of any longstanding tradition in this nation.”
Today’s ruling provides a perfect example of how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be used to slowly erode the principle that American law should exclusively govern this nation on issues of parents and children.
Michael Farris, Chairman of HSLDA and President of ParentalRights.org, wrote a brief on behalf of sixteen members of Congress in this case. The Supreme Court majority referenced his brief twice in making its ruling. His brief is available by clicking here.
Combined with recent statements by groups dedicated to the ratification of the UN CRC, today’s ruling signals that we must stop the ratification of the CRC before it gains momentum in the Senate.
Just last week Senator Jim DeMint introduced S. Res. 519 urging President Obama not to send the UN child rights treaty to the Senate for ratification. Our goal is to get at least 34 co-sponsors of S. Res. 519. If we are successful in this, the CRC will be dead at least until this Congress is replaced in January 2011.
This is a means of stopping the CRC for now. Ultimately, we need the Parental Rights Amendment as a permanent solution. Only then can we be confident that we have stopped the courts from using international law to decide cases about American children and American parents. Please call both of your US Senators to urge them to co-sponsor S. Res. 519 to stop the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child...
...As alluded to above, our call blitz to the Senate to support SR 519 continues. In fact, if anything, it is intensified by this Supreme Court decision. Please visit the Resolution Status Board and call now!
In addition, now is a great time to call your congressman and urge him once again to support H.J.Res. 42, the Parental Rights Amendment. It is the only permanent solution to the threat to families posed by the CRC.
Visit ParentalRights.org/States and click on your state. If your congressman is not a cosponsor, click on his name for contact information and give him a call.
Tell him you support parental rights and want to see them permanently protected in the text of the Constitution. Tell him party affiliation is no excuse – the Louisiana Senate recently passed a resolution calling for the amendment, and the 34-0 vote included 17 Democrats, 16 Republicans and 1 Independent. Tell them you will be looking for a courageous leader on family issues this November, and ask them to support H.J. Res. 42.
Be polite and thank them for their time.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that juvenile felons cannot be sentenced to life in prison without parole in non-homicide cases. This stands as another example of the all-too-common practice of federal judges substituting their political judgments for that of state legislators.
In addition, the Supreme Court, in the process of reaching this decision, once again used the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a guide to interpreting the Constitution of the United States.
As Justice Thomas noted in his dissent, international laws “are irrelevant to the meaning of our Constitution or the Court’s discernment of any longstanding tradition in this nation.”
Today’s ruling provides a perfect example of how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will be used to slowly erode the principle that American law should exclusively govern this nation on issues of parents and children.
Michael Farris, Chairman of HSLDA and President of ParentalRights.org, wrote a brief on behalf of sixteen members of Congress in this case. The Supreme Court majority referenced his brief twice in making its ruling. His brief is available by clicking here.
Combined with recent statements by groups dedicated to the ratification of the UN CRC, today’s ruling signals that we must stop the ratification of the CRC before it gains momentum in the Senate.
Just last week Senator Jim DeMint introduced S. Res. 519 urging President Obama not to send the UN child rights treaty to the Senate for ratification. Our goal is to get at least 34 co-sponsors of S. Res. 519. If we are successful in this, the CRC will be dead at least until this Congress is replaced in January 2011.
This is a means of stopping the CRC for now. Ultimately, we need the Parental Rights Amendment as a permanent solution. Only then can we be confident that we have stopped the courts from using international law to decide cases about American children and American parents. Please call both of your US Senators to urge them to co-sponsor S. Res. 519 to stop the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child...
...As alluded to above, our call blitz to the Senate to support SR 519 continues. In fact, if anything, it is intensified by this Supreme Court decision. Please visit the Resolution Status Board and call now!
In addition, now is a great time to call your congressman and urge him once again to support H.J.Res. 42, the Parental Rights Amendment. It is the only permanent solution to the threat to families posed by the CRC.
Visit ParentalRights.org/States and click on your state. If your congressman is not a cosponsor, click on his name for contact information and give him a call.
Tell him you support parental rights and want to see them permanently protected in the text of the Constitution. Tell him party affiliation is no excuse – the Louisiana Senate recently passed a resolution calling for the amendment, and the 34-0 vote included 17 Democrats, 16 Republicans and 1 Independent. Tell them you will be looking for a courageous leader on family issues this November, and ask them to support H.J. Res. 42.
Be polite and thank them for their time.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Creation of an International Tribunal for Children
by Michael Farris
On April 1, the Islamic nation of Maldives proudly announced a breakthrough in long-stalled negotiations to create an international tribunal to receive complaints from individual children. For twenty years, internationalist efforts to create a new world tribunal for children to challenge the actions of their own governments have been thwarted by political division. But, after a month of negotiations led by Maldives a unanimous agreement was reached on the components for a new optional protocol to be added to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Maldives is a curious choice to lead negotiations on a human rights treaty. When Maldives signed and ratified the CRC in 1990-91, it boldly rejected any semblance of religious freedom—a central “right” in the CRC. The Maldivian reservation proclaims: “The Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 14 of the said Convention on the Rights of the Child, since the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Maldives stipulate that all Maldivians should be Muslims.”
What will this new protocol accomplish? According to Miadhu, a Maldivian news agency, the “protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), will create a procedure whereby children who are being abused or their representatives (such as national child protection NGOS, lawyers, and doctors) could seek assistance from international human rights protection mechanisms when domestic institutions are failing to offer protection.”
This means either a child on his own or a group like the Children’s Defense Fund (formerly headed by Hillary Clinton) or a local social worker could file a petition before this new international tribunal seeking to overrule the decisions of American courts regarding the rights guaranteed by the CRC.
An important principle of international law makes it clear how dangerous such tribunals can be. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides, “A nation may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Thus, if the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of a parent to engage in corporal punishment, for example, the losing party could then turn to this international tribunal to argue that America is failing to comply with the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Constitution of the United States would provide no defense in such a hearing. International law would be the exclusive authority for resolving the dispute.
This scenario only becomes a reality if the United States decides to become a party to the CRC and to this new protocol. The Obama administration has publicly announced its desire to obtain the ratification of the CRC itself. And at a conference at Georgetown Law School in 2009, the American advocates of the CRC announced their support for this new optional protocol.
For those who cannot imagine the United States accepting these dramatic changes in our law, please remember that it was not long ago that it seemed unthinkable that the federal government would take over General Motors, major banks, and the American healthcare system. Global socialism marches at a quick pace.
by Michael Farris
On April 1, the Islamic nation of Maldives proudly announced a breakthrough in long-stalled negotiations to create an international tribunal to receive complaints from individual children. For twenty years, internationalist efforts to create a new world tribunal for children to challenge the actions of their own governments have been thwarted by political division. But, after a month of negotiations led by Maldives a unanimous agreement was reached on the components for a new optional protocol to be added to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Maldives is a curious choice to lead negotiations on a human rights treaty. When Maldives signed and ratified the CRC in 1990-91, it boldly rejected any semblance of religious freedom—a central “right” in the CRC. The Maldivian reservation proclaims: “The Government of the Republic of Maldives expresses its reservation to paragraph 1 of article 14 of the said Convention on the Rights of the Child, since the Constitution and the Laws of the Republic of Maldives stipulate that all Maldivians should be Muslims.”
What will this new protocol accomplish? According to Miadhu, a Maldivian news agency, the “protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), will create a procedure whereby children who are being abused or their representatives (such as national child protection NGOS, lawyers, and doctors) could seek assistance from international human rights protection mechanisms when domestic institutions are failing to offer protection.”
This means either a child on his own or a group like the Children’s Defense Fund (formerly headed by Hillary Clinton) or a local social worker could file a petition before this new international tribunal seeking to overrule the decisions of American courts regarding the rights guaranteed by the CRC.
An important principle of international law makes it clear how dangerous such tribunals can be. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides, “A nation may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” Thus, if the United States Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right of a parent to engage in corporal punishment, for example, the losing party could then turn to this international tribunal to argue that America is failing to comply with the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The Constitution of the United States would provide no defense in such a hearing. International law would be the exclusive authority for resolving the dispute.
This scenario only becomes a reality if the United States decides to become a party to the CRC and to this new protocol. The Obama administration has publicly announced its desire to obtain the ratification of the CRC itself. And at a conference at Georgetown Law School in 2009, the American advocates of the CRC announced their support for this new optional protocol.
For those who cannot imagine the United States accepting these dramatic changes in our law, please remember that it was not long ago that it seemed unthinkable that the federal government would take over General Motors, major banks, and the American healthcare system. Global socialism marches at a quick pace.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Suitable Education--or Indoctrination
If you haven't heard of the Badman Report, go to http://www.hslda.org/search.asp?cx=003292018161232433569%3At9te_l-65iw&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=badman+report&sa.x=26&sa.y=9#912 .
Suitable Education—or Indoctrination?
Volume 92, Program 3010/9/2009
Transcript of "Home School Heartbeat" radio program of HSLDA
Adopting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—the CRC—would require the state to provide a suitable education for your child. Host Mike Farris examines the alarming truth about what comprises the UN definition of “suitable,” on today’s Home School Heartbeat.
Mike Farris:
In his recent report on home education law in England, Graham Badman urges creating a new definition of what is “suitable” for a child’s education. He cites Article 29 of the UNCRC as setting the standard for guiding such new requirements.
It is therefore crucial to understand Article 29. Subsections (b) through (e) attempt to control the substantive content of education and require the promulgation of certain worldviews that are controversial—not just among homeschoolers, but among many segments of the population.
Advocates of this treaty make a clear and bold declaration that this article “directs state parties to instill particular values in children through education.”
It is not necessary to debate the legitimacy of the values enshrined in their list of viewpoints to be instilled in every child in every type of school. The real issue is, does England—and does America—intend to mandate the inculcation of certain “approved” values to children?
England’s current law is clearly on the side of freedom and contrary to any regime of government-compelled indoctrination in any particular system of values. Nothing in English law allows government officials to dictate the worldview, opinions, or viewpoints which must be taught in home education—except the CRC.
I’m Mike Farris.
Suitable Education—or Indoctrination?
Volume 92, Program 3010/9/2009
Transcript of "Home School Heartbeat" radio program of HSLDA
Adopting the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—the CRC—would require the state to provide a suitable education for your child. Host Mike Farris examines the alarming truth about what comprises the UN definition of “suitable,” on today’s Home School Heartbeat.
Mike Farris:
In his recent report on home education law in England, Graham Badman urges creating a new definition of what is “suitable” for a child’s education. He cites Article 29 of the UNCRC as setting the standard for guiding such new requirements.
It is therefore crucial to understand Article 29. Subsections (b) through (e) attempt to control the substantive content of education and require the promulgation of certain worldviews that are controversial—not just among homeschoolers, but among many segments of the population.
Advocates of this treaty make a clear and bold declaration that this article “directs state parties to instill particular values in children through education.”
It is not necessary to debate the legitimacy of the values enshrined in their list of viewpoints to be instilled in every child in every type of school. The real issue is, does England—and does America—intend to mandate the inculcation of certain “approved” values to children?
England’s current law is clearly on the side of freedom and contrary to any regime of government-compelled indoctrination in any particular system of values. Nothing in English law allows government officials to dictate the worldview, opinions, or viewpoints which must be taught in home education—except the CRC.
I’m Mike Farris.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Fresh Attack on Parental Rights
From parentalrights.org
We are very excited about the progress we are seeing in Washington as a result of your calls. Just yesterday, Rep. LoBiondo contacted Congressman Hoekstra to become the 119th cosponsor (including Hoekstra) of H.J. Res. 42 (the Parental Rights Amendment in the House), the first from the state of New Jersey. Last week, we added Congressman Young of Alaska as well.
Relative to that, it appears that the CRC’s bid for ratification is stalled in the executive and legislative branches (at least for the moment) – so its proponents are trying to legislate it through the judicial branch instead.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases this term which challenge the authority of the state of Florida to sentence minors to life without parole for extremely violent crimes. Amnesty International (AI) has filed briefs in both cases arguing that the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is binding on the United States as a matter of Customary International Law. While these cases do not involve parental rights, adoption of the CRC as Customary International Law would certainly be a blow to parental rights in America.
ParentalRights.org president Michael Farris has written an opposing brief, submitted to the Supreme Court by 16 members of the House of Representatives, explaining why the AI brief’s assertions are false, and why the CRC should not be applied to American law without full ratification. You can read our press release here. Not surprisingly, 15 of the 16 Congressmen who submitted this brief are also cosponsors of H.J. Res. 42 (the Parental Rights Amendment), and the 16th has vowed to vote “Yes.”
The fact is, despite all our hard work, the threat has not gone away. Should the Supreme Court find the CRC binding on U.S. states as Customary International Law, our job will get a whole lot tougher. As John Adams once wrote, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” That’s why we need to keep pushing to pass the Parental Rights Amendment before those rights can be taken away.
Please, although you’ve already called before, we urge you to call Congress again today. The race is on to preserve parental rights in America. Let’s get your Congressman and Senators on board before this week is out!
Find your Congressman’s and Senators’ contact info by clicking on your state at our States Watch page.
We are very excited about the progress we are seeing in Washington as a result of your calls. Just yesterday, Rep. LoBiondo contacted Congressman Hoekstra to become the 119th cosponsor (including Hoekstra) of H.J. Res. 42 (the Parental Rights Amendment in the House), the first from the state of New Jersey. Last week, we added Congressman Young of Alaska as well.
Relative to that, it appears that the CRC’s bid for ratification is stalled in the executive and legislative branches (at least for the moment) – so its proponents are trying to legislate it through the judicial branch instead.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases this term which challenge the authority of the state of Florida to sentence minors to life without parole for extremely violent crimes. Amnesty International (AI) has filed briefs in both cases arguing that the U.N.’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is binding on the United States as a matter of Customary International Law. While these cases do not involve parental rights, adoption of the CRC as Customary International Law would certainly be a blow to parental rights in America.
ParentalRights.org president Michael Farris has written an opposing brief, submitted to the Supreme Court by 16 members of the House of Representatives, explaining why the AI brief’s assertions are false, and why the CRC should not be applied to American law without full ratification. You can read our press release here. Not surprisingly, 15 of the 16 Congressmen who submitted this brief are also cosponsors of H.J. Res. 42 (the Parental Rights Amendment), and the 16th has vowed to vote “Yes.”
The fact is, despite all our hard work, the threat has not gone away. Should the Supreme Court find the CRC binding on U.S. states as Customary International Law, our job will get a whole lot tougher. As John Adams once wrote, “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” That’s why we need to keep pushing to pass the Parental Rights Amendment before those rights can be taken away.
Please, although you’ve already called before, we urge you to call Congress again today. The race is on to preserve parental rights in America. Let’s get your Congressman and Senators on board before this week is out!
Find your Congressman’s and Senators’ contact info by clicking on your state at our States Watch page.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Parentalrights.org -- New Milestones in Congress
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE / July 27, 2009 / Washington, D.C. – A Constitutional Amendment to protect the parent-child relationship introduced by U.S. Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan, has reached 110 co-sponsors in the House.
"More and more members of Congress are recognizing the threat from government and foreign interference into the parent-child relationship," Hoekstra said. "I encourage my colleagues to support the initiative by co-sponsoring the Parents’ Rights Amendment."
The Parental Rights Amendment (H.J.Res.42) would state explicitly in the U.S. Constitution that parents have a fundamental right to raise their children as they see fit, while protecting against abuse and neglect. Threats to the parent-child relationship include potential Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and the erosion of fundamental parental rights in our federal courts.
"Just about every member of Congress agrees with the legal principle that parents have the fundamental right to make decisions for the upbringing of their children," said Michael Farris, J.D., president of Parentalrights.org. "Because of international law and shifting judicial philosophies, the right is being steadily undermined. We now have 110 members of Congress with the foresight to say that we need to protect this long-standing right before the erosion goes too far. We appreciate the leadership of Pete Hoekstra and the 109 other members of Congress who believe that it is important to secure the rights of American families for generations to come."
More information on the Parental Rights Amendment can be viewed at www.parentalrights.org.
More Good News
In addition, we also received word that Senator Coburn of Oklahoma has signed on as a cosponsor of S.J. Res. 16, the Parental Rights Amendment in the Senate. This brings our total in the Senate to three (3) - a slow but important start.
While there is no way to track the direct effects of your calls and emails and our visits last week, it is safe to assume that at least some of these cosponsors would not have signed on before the summer break without this contact. When we visited Congress last week, everyone we spoke to was already aware of the Amendment - a major change from just four months ago! Our thanks and congratulations to you for your efforts to bring this vital issue to the attention of your Senators and Congressmen. With help like yours, we will win!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)