Parental Rights Amendment Needs Amendment

Posted on February 17th, 2010 in Articles

If you had chickens in a chicken coop and a fence defining their living space would you ask the fox to guard the coop? Further, would you tell the fox he has the authority to set aside the fence whenever he thought he had a compelling foxy interest to do so?

The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is granted to us by that same Creator mentioned in our Declaration of Independence. I am thrilled to see organizations seeking to protect that right, particularly when the United Nations is covertly working to deny it by international treaty. The Parental Rights Organization has written an amendment to our U. S. Constitution intending to protect parental rights. But in Section Two of its amendment it utterly destroys not only parental rights but all rights by granting that the Federal government may, when it thinks it serves its best interest, infringe on parental rights.

What kind of rights are we talking about when we acknowledge that the federal government may infringe them when it thinks it is good to do so?

Didn’t our constitutional framers understand this in 1776? Why didn’t they simply acknowledge that King George III had the authority to violate the colonial rights when he thought it in his best interest to do so? Shoot, if Patrick Henry, George Washington, Robert Morris and the others had understood this there would have been no shooting! And, we would still be a part of the moribund United Kingdom.

So you know what I am writing about, here is the complete text of the Parental Rights Amendment:
“Section One – The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
Section Two – 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 Three – 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.”

Your major concern ought to be with Section Two for it destroys our constitutional government.

Section Two subjects the U. S. Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights contained in it, along with this proposed amendment, to the whim of the Federal Government. By so doing we no longer have a functioning written constitution. The truth is that the Bill of Rights is subject to the Law of God but not to the civil state. The very function of the written constitution is to bring the civil state into subjection to the constitution. This was the framers’ conception of a limited civil government “chained” by the constitution. (I think it was Jefferson who used the language of the chain.) Section Two of the Parental Rights Amendment elevates the Civil Government to the position of the highest authority in the USA placing the U. S. Constitution in subjection to its will or “compelling state interest”. No sir! The civil government is subject to the constitution not the constitution subject to the civil government. Section Two is the establishment of a totalitarian state. Section Two is the destruction of constitutional government. I think Lenin would have loved Section Two! As it was he did set aside whatever was in his way even as our progressive justices, congressmen and presidents have done to “legalize” the murder of tens of millions of unborn human babies.

The Parental Rights Amendment could be a good thing if Section One concluded with the words, “granted by Our Creator.” thus mirroring the language of our Declaration of Independence; and if Section Two were entirely deleted; and then Section Three be renamed Section Two.

If Section Two remains in the Parental Rights Amendment then you ought to think carefully. If you do so, I think you will see the necessity of opposing the Parental Rights Amendment. Not only will it fail to protect parental rights to direct the upbringing and the education of their children, it will undermine the entire Bill of Rights, subjecting these to the will of the civil government and its definition of “compelling state interest.”

I hope you still have in mind the chicken coop and the fox with which I began. The point it made was the point I wanted to make but there is an inaccuracy in my picture and I am compelled to correct it. The reality is that the chicken coop or the U. S. Constitution, was not intended to “fence in” the chickens, the citizens of these United States, but rather was intended to “fence in” those who would seek to govern us at the federal level. The U. S. Constitution put chains upon the Supreme Court, the Congress and the President, severely limiting their power so they couldn’t consume our livelihoods or even ourselves. The Foxes have been very good at making us forget who is limited by the U. S. Constitution. (How foolish to let the foxes control education!) Let’s not fall into their trap and give the Foxes a free pass to enter the chicken coop whenever they think it good for foxes. Let’s oppose the Parental Rights Amendment as long as Section Two remains. And pray to our Creator, the triune God of the Bible, not to allow this amendment to become a part of the U. S. Constitution.