Watch David Barton on the
Glenn Beck Program this Friday, July 2!
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
David Barton of Wallbuilder on Glenn Beck
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, June 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)