US Parental Rights Constitutional Amendment

Written by: Print This Article Print This Article   
Use of Our Content (Reposting and Quoting)

A group of US lawmakers has proposed the Parental Rights Amendment to the US Constitution to guarantee that parents will not lose their rights of being involved in their children’s lives and being able to make choices regarding their education, healthcare, and other decisions traditionally made by parents. They and the supporters of this amendment believe that it is necessary as the US Supreme Court has recently been rejecting enforcement of traditional parent rights interpretations, citing that there is no language in the Constitution that specifies parents have any rights.

Furthermore, the United Nations is increasingly involved in treaties and agencies that define the rights of children and parents. Some in the US government, including President Obama, appear to intend to discard US sovereignty for matters involving parents and children by ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child that is controlled by a group of unelected and unaccountable United Nations experts. This treaty essentially would give the United Nations and thereby the US government the right to do whatever it wants “in the best interests of the children” even if the parents are opposed.

Proposed Text of Parental Rights Amendment

The following is the text of a proposed US Constitutional Amendment to define parental rights as fundamental rights as defined by the Constitution.

(from Parents’ Rights)

Parents’ Rights Constitutional Amendment

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.

Government Agencies Frequently Abuse Families

There are many examples of government agencies taking children away from families and putting them into foster care even over reasonable parenting practices. The courts generally uphold such immoral actions by the government. For example:

(from The Threat: Attacks on Parental Rights)

In the early 1980s, a landmark parental rights case reached the Washington State Supreme Court. The case involved 13-year-old Sheila Marie Sumey, whose parents were alarmed when they found evidence of their daughter’s participation in illegal drug activity and escalating sexual involvement. Their response was to act immediately to cut off the negative influences in their daughter’s life by grounding her.

But when Sheila went to her school counselors complaining about her parent’s actions, she was advised that she could be liberated from her parents because there was “conflict between parent and child.” Listening to the advice she had received, Sheila notified Child Protective Services (CPS) about her situation. She was subsequently removed from her home and placed in foster care.

Her parents, desperate to get their daughter back, challenged the actions of the social workers in court. They lost. Even though the judge found that Sheila’s parents had enforced reasonable rules in a proper manner, the state law nevertheless gave CPS the authority to split apart the Sumey family and take Sheila away.

The threat to children and parents from local and state governments is already severe, with it routine practice for Child Protective Services agencies to remove children from homes with no due process and no court hearings, often with CPS social workers lying and using the children for their own purposes. For instance, some of them try to adopt out taken children to their own relatives. Others end up in foster care which has a higher rate of child abuse and neglect than children living with biological parents.

Parental Rights Amendment Only One of Many Steps Needed

We agree there is a need for law to protect families from abusive and aggressive government interference. However, we think the Parental Rights Amendment is one step of many that are needed. Prosecution and heavy sanctions on government officials that violate Constitutional law is another step that is required. Today’s laws do not afford adequate protection to children or parents.

When rogue judges, dishonest cops and social workers seek vengeance upon families or to victimize them for personal gain, there is generally very little, if anything, that is done to punish the criminal government officials for breaking the law. It is time to enact legislation that permanently terminates the employment of government officials who violate the Constitutional rights and civil rights of others. Fines and prison sentences should be routinely used, also.

In the case Corrupt Pennsylvania Courts Jail Kids for Cash, this wasn’t some misunderstanding of the law or political differences. It was a case of blatant violations of numerous laws that severely injured thousands of children for the purposes of personal gain that continued for several years by multiple employees of the Luzerne County courts. The injuries weren’t limited to children, either. Conohan was also involved in many other corrupt judicial decisions outside of juvenile courts. Government officials who behave as Ciavarella and Conohan have are criminals perhaps even worse than the Timothy McVeighs of the world. McVeigh was executed for his crimes, and government officials like Ciavarella and Conohan also deserve a similar fate.

Further Reading

Protecting Children by Empowering Parents

The Threat: Attacks on Parental Rights

Parental Rights Amendment Supplemental Issues

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

San Diego County Grand Jury Letter Regarding CPS Abuses

US Judges involved in human trafficking

High Crime – and Profit – in Jailing Kids: Monopoly Capitalism at Work

Appeals Courts Used Strong Language in Overturning Conahan’s Decisions

Law Enforcement: This Week’s Corrupt Cops Stories

Newsvine: Comments on Judicial Corruption Across the US

  1. Joe Russ
    June 4th, 2009 at 12:30 | #1

    Many US Family Court Judges has demonized and criminalized tens of millions of adults in custody and child support cases. Biased in favor of women. Denying the children and fathers their constitutional rights. These Judges have violated their oath of office and the Supreme Law of the Land. Many should be impeached. But there should also be an introduction of new legislation to limit the time a Judge can be on the bench. In Pennsylvania a Judge serves unlimited number of 10 year terms. No Judge should be on the bench more than 8 years.

  2. one of thousands
    September 7th, 2010 at 21:27 | #2

    Good article. Keep in mind that judges are almost entirely selected from District Attorneys–criminal prosecutors who’ve done nothing significant with their lives other than throw people in jail. People who have the government’s–and only the government’s–best interest in mind. Not yours. Not mine. The government’s (meaning, their buddies’ in the DA office). DAs get busted regularly for breaking their own rules–and that’s only in the few cases in which they get caught. Trust me–I’ve worked for them. There are thousands more for every one that gets a slap on the wrist.

    Term limits work so-so. They keep the crooks on the bench focussed on the fact that it’s absolutely certain they’ll have to go back to live in the world they create. Create a fascist world? Welcome back. Hope that works for you, because Judy, the hairdresser down the street, has your spot now and she wants everyone to have blonde hair and purple clothes.

    Unlikely? Of course–but no more arbitrary than most decisions life-term judges make. Trust me folks–I’ve been there.

    You might be a lot less likely to live above the law if you have to turn in your robe and put on a suit to be treated like a normal citizen in a few years. Makes you think more about others and less about your political career and tiny (and I mean tiny in every sense of the word) empire.

    But then again, I don’t look too bad in purple yet Judy. Way more attractive than county jail orange. Let’s talk.

    Best wishes all.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *