The Parental Rights Amendment: A Trojan horse

by: michael wolfe | published: 02 24, 2010

Here is the amendment, which purports to protect parental rights and, on a glance actually appears to do so.

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 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.

Sections one and three are very good, and would appear to protect the rights of parents to train up their children according to the dictates of their conscience.

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.

Notice how it does not make an exception for the life or abuse of the child, but for “governmental interest.” This amendment would give, for the first time, Constitutional authority for the government- federal, state or local- to seize ANY child for ANY reason. Section 2 with the nebulous terminology “governmental interest” effectively makes sections one and two non-existent. Considering the current congress and president’s obsession with “hate crimes” is it really that far fetched for such a administration, or a succeeding one, to deem a “governmental interest” in ensuring that children do not grow up with “divisive” and “disruptive” intolerant views on sexuality and gender identity, or perhaps “backwards and antisocial” views on private property and capitalism? This amendment, under the right regime, could be used to enact a defacto ban on home or private schooling if it was decided that such activities do not serve the “highest order” of the government’s interest. This amendment must be opposed at all levels

This amendment, if added to the Constitution will deal a severe blow to parental rights, surrendering a great portion of parental authority to the government. Here is the official explanation of this section from the amendment’s website, parentalrights.org:

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.

SUMMARY: While parental rights do not include a right to commit child abuse or neglect, they are due the same high legal protection as other fundamental rights.

Notice that the summary they provide  includes specific examples: abuse/neglect. “Governmental interest,” while it COULD mean those things, cannot be logically or honestly claimed to be limited to those things. We are talking about politicians that have difficulty interpreting easy to understand phrases as “right to bear arms.” They will have a heyday with “governmental interest.” Just look what they’ve done with the commerce clause:

“…demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person…”
Because fundamental rights are so important to our freedom as Americans, the government must meet a heightened burden of proof in order to restrict those rights. In legal terms, the government’s case begins with a positive demonstration – they must prove that there is a government interest in restricting the right, and that the government has a specific interest in restricting the right of the particular parents whose actions are being challenged. In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court used this very language when talking about violations of religious liberty. According to the Court, the government must “demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’–the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirito Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 548 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006). The text of this proposed parental rights amendment merely takes this well-established principle of law, and applies it explicitly to the fundamental right of parents.

Yes, it is called due process. Life liberty or property shall not be taken without due process, regardless of the “governmental interest.” This amendment does not provide any such “heightened burden of proof,” merely that the government thinks its interest in the child is greater than the parent’s and is not being served by the parents. It sets a very low bar, and leaves parental rights at the mercy of liberal bureaucrats and other social engineers.

“…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.

Again, this amendment does not spell out what “governmental interest” actually means, and leaves the door open to great federal abuse of this newly codified interest. The focus on religious practice here readily suggests that section 2 could be used to remove children from christian or other families that believe homosexuality or other behaviors are immoral and against God. The reason that would be cited is a “governmental interest” of the highest order in “promoting diversity and inclusiveness” and fostering a “tolerant society.”

We tend to read into a bill that we want to like those things that would make it likable. The reality of this would be amendment is that it opens the legal door to massive federal interference in the rights of parents to raise their children. And as far as the “UN Convention on the rights of the child,” Section 2 of this amendment makes section 3, professing to forbid treaties undermining parental authority moot- if said treaty is “in the utmost interest of the Government.”

This Amendment, as well as the UN Convention on the rights of the Child must be opposed by all who love freedom and want to raise up their children according to the laws of nature and Nature’s God.

comments

• Reply to this comment

  Nathan

  The seizure and control of another’s children is a personal violation and matter of life and death which constitutes unrecoverable measures of time for which neither remedy nor relief may be sought in any meaningful way. It should be of no surprise to you that any normal man or woman would concede not or until death to return to their child(s), for it is our children who are our blood and our beloved. Taking a child is criminal in the vilest and most depraved comportment and represents an audacity of personal intention on the level of decrepit horror.

  
  

add a comment