Utterly Meaningless

There’s a reason the framers didn’t mention God in the Constitution. Does HSLDA think it was a big mistake?

What is the point of the Parents’ Rights Ammendment? Seriously, why does it seem like a good idea? Why start a fight? You are really willing to draw a line in the sand and dare someone to cross it just to ram god’s name into the Constitution?

Also, my personal arguement against this legislation is that it mentions god. I don’t believe in god and don’t believe that my parenthood was bestowed upon me by a god. My rights therefore were not bestowed upon me by any god. I know how babies are made, and if god was there, it wasn’t the one some people pray to.

Like all rights, parental rights exist through people being willing to exert those rights and to be responsible for the outcome. It’s called parenting. And the UN is not going to take your babies away.

It’s old but the ACLU’s take on this is still germane.

Electrons are cheap.

BTW, since you’re so worried about the UN– Did you know that treaties signed by the US are the highest law of the land, trumping even the US Constitution?

Farris et al. are trying to amend the Constitution every other day. It’s all part of the Theocracy Now! movement. Anything pushed by him is automatically suspect at this point.

And the link goes to the ACLU’s position on the Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act…Not the UN’s “Rights of the Child” treaty.

Yes, I said it was old. The arguments are still apt.

“Jodi, paragraph 1 of my previous comment explains why. Parental rights legislation could ultimately bury the school system in litigation.”

The UN Treaty could have the same result only on the flip side of the coin…the state would be suing parents left and right, and parents would be powerless…

And don’t think this isn’t already happening…i.e. parents sue school: Fields v. Palmdale. State sues parents: Abraham Cherrix.

Saying passing one or the other legislation will increase litigation isn’t a good reason to not pass it. We still have litigation over Freedom of Speech, but no one says that we should get rid of the First ammendment because we’ve got litigation over the issue.

The UN Treaty will certainly bury our nation in litigation…Children who don’t like their bedtime, teenagers who don’t like their curfew, kids who “need” their parents to buy them fancy clothes or cell phones, parents who don’t want to force their child through chemo…

The UN Treaty will be much more litigatious then a Parents Rights Ammendment IMHO. I’m still not clear why you think that an ammendment to protect parents rights would be negative…if it’s only because it’ll cause lawsuits, that wouldn’t be anything new then what we have happening now….

Is anyone even TRYING to get the treaty ratified in the US? Is there even a CHANCE that it might be ratified? No and no. So, why the need for Farris’ second amendment to the constitution (his other is the anti-homosexual one)? It’s all about power– power for the theocrats, especially Mike.

Jodi, he’s got you so scared that you’re peeing down your leg. Have you stopped to wonder why he’s doing that?

Daryl,
Mr. Farris doesn’t have me “scared” at all. As I’ve stated before, it’s the UN Treaty text. Not Mr. Farris. Is anyone trying to ratify the treaty NOW? Nope. Bush said he wouldn’t try, and all other political debates on him aside, he kept good on his word. However, (as I am sure you know) Bush isn’t going to be president forever and the treaty is still signed by the democrats and waiting to be ratified. And the courts have already begun looking at the UNRATIFIED treaty as “persuasive” and it has alreadybeen used to determine lawsuits. If it’s already influencing judicial decisions when it’s NOT LAW in our nation, how much more if it ever does become law?

To say “the treaty isn’t being ratified so we shouldn’t worry” is only a complement to President Bush having been faithful to his promise. But the reality is, the treaty IS being used by the courts, and unless Bush stays president forever, chances are we will end up with someone who DOES want the treaty ratified at some point.

Mary SNIP: “Under this act, before the US government could interfere in the parent-child relationship, the government would have to show that the action is necessary to protect a compelling interest and that the means that the government uses to protect this interest is the least restrictive available.’ Senator Warner is acknowledging that the measure would, for the first time in American history, authorize direct federal involvement in the home if that involvement can be swaddled in the rationale of a government-defined ‘compelling interest’.” (William Norman Grigg, “Does the State Own Your Child?”, The New American (Magazine), July 8, 1996, page 7

Again, why is this a “change”? This isn’t the “first time in American history” the government would be authorized to become involved in the home if they claim involvement is related to a “compelling interest”. This happens all the time now as it is…often through the government agency known as “Child Protective Services”.

Family has children removed from home because child was fed a peanut butter sandwich and there were toys on the floor.

Family is investigated because child was seen “climbing a tree”.

Father chasing his daughter when she was running towards the street and when he swooped her up to keep her from running too far, he was reported for “inapproprate sexual touching”.

The government can ALREADY get into our family, and right now they often do NOT NEED TO PROVE A COMPELLING INTEREST! To have an ammendment requiring a compelliing interest would not permit the governement more involvement, but make their ability to interfere harder! Would they still be able to become involved in some situations? Yes. But they would have to (for the first time) be held to a standard of actually having a legitamate reason for it.

Mary: Jodi, I find it very sad that everyone here is taking the time and effort to attempt to reach you with the truth, and you immediately perceive that to be an attack on you. There are none so deaf as those who will not hear. Sigh.

I don’t see it as an attack on me. I like being my children’s mother, and in light of legal realities, I would like to see legislation and ammendments passed so I can continue to be their mother, and I would like to know that the government is as restricted as possible from interfering with that right to be their mother.

I support this ammendment REGARDLESS of HSLDA. Your opposing it BECAUSE of HSLDA isn’t going to convince me. I could care less who drafted the wording. It’s good for the government to have accountability before they can push their way into homes, and I will support any laws that encourage that higher standard of accountability.

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this. 🙂