ParentalRights.org » Blog

Has Parental Rights.org talked to any candidates about their support of a Parental Rights amendment? I would be interested to hear the answers.

We have talked to some of them but it has not risen yet to the level where they are answering it. We need folks to ask them in order to help bring it into attention.

Ron Paul is a long time advocates of getting the US out of the UN. This would stop the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I understand Scalia’s interpretation of the Constitution, but I believe he is omitting a very important aspect. The 9th amendment states:

‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.’

We are not constricted to the rights that are specifically named in the Bill of Rights.

The solution is not a constitutional amendment, just as the solution isn’t a marriage amendment or life amendment. Quit playing nanny-state and trying to federalize every issue, that is how we have gotten to this point. To insist on a constitutional amendment is to insist that parental rights are non-existent and will only exist with one - which is blatantly false.

Braden, you are certainly right about the 9th amendment. Regrettably we are well past that stage. I would refer you to our Learn the Issue section of our website to understand why we believe in this case we need an amendment. I would also add that I am very thankful that the Founding Fathers believed we needed the Bill of Rights. I would assume you believe they were not playing the “nanny state” by enacting the first amendment, for example? At that time many made essentially the exact argument you are making but thankfully the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution. I am are thankful for their foresight on those issues. Thanks for posting!

Mike HUCKABEE “is adamantly opposed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and is committed to stopping the erosion of parental rights” - (direct quote from HSLDA’s Endorsement of Hike HUCKABEE)

Dear HSLDA members:

HSLDA’s PAC Committee has taken the historic step of making an early endorsement in the 2008 race for president.

We believe that Mike Huckabee, Governor of Arkansas, should be elected the next President of the United States. Mike is a principled conservative, a friend of homeschooling, a man of character, and a man with a mature faith in Jesus Christ.

Mike Huckabee, as governor, was the first to appoint a homeschooler to the Arkansas State Board of Education, and to our knowledge the first to do so in any state. He is adamantly opposed to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and is committed to stopping the erosion of parental rights. He is pro-life. He supports traditional marriage. He believes that the Internal Revenue Service should be abolished and replaced with the Fair Tax–a move that we strongly support because it would greatly benefit homeschooling families. He believes and is willing to say that Islamic extremism needs to be understood as a theologically driven threat. He believes that America must be strong, but should never be perceived as a bully. He believes that our borders must be secured not only from illegal immigration but from the growing trend among American judges of “illegally importing” international law into our American judicial systems.

There are a few other candidates in the race who are properly described as principled conservatives. None of the media’s “frontrunners” would qualify for this designation. But we believe that Mike Huckabee is by far the best communicator in the race–he is able to articulate his conservative principles in an incredibly winsome and articulate manner. Moreover, among the principled conservatives, Huckabee is the only one who has been a governor. And we have not elected members of either the Senate or the House–and certainly not a mayor–as President of the United States in nearly a half century.

We believe that Mike Huckabee may be the only candidate in the race who could defeat Hillary Clinton in 2008.
Because of her past support for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, we believe that it is absolutely essential to find a candidate who can beat her. If she is elected president, both homeschooling and parental rights would be in serious jeopardy.

To date, based on early polls, we are told that Rudy Giuliani is the front-runner for the GOP nomination. It is our judgment that Giuliani cannot possibly beat Hillary Clinton. Since 1976, no person running for president as a moderate Republican has ever won the election. (Not everyone running as a conservative proved to be a true conservative, but we are analyzing elections.) Ford and Dole–both moderates– lost in 1976 and 1996. Reagan, a clear conservative, won landslides in 1980 and 1984. George H.W. Bush portrayed himself as a Reagan man in 1988 and won. But as president he violated his famous “read my lips– no new taxes” pledge, and was defeated in 1992 when it had become clear to America that he was a moderate. George W. Bush ran as a conservative and was elected in 2000 and 2004.

Moderate Republicans simply cannot win the presidency. If the nation wants a Democrat, they choose the real thing. This is particularly true on the abortion issue. Giuliani supports Roe vs. Wade and will never win the support of the crucial block of social conservatives. Hillary Clinton will be elected president if Giuliani is the candidate. We think this is true of any of the other front-runners–none of whom comes close to being labeled a truly principled conservative. Do not believe the early polls. History is a far better means of analysis. No moderate Republican can be elected president.

We have taken this historic step of an early endorsement because the process of electing our president is based on a radically different timetable in this election. The vast majority of the primaries will be earlier than ever before. If we do not act now, all conservatives will be driven from the race by lack of funding and we will be left with only unacceptable choices.
Thus, we urge our members to do four things:

1. Support Mike Huckabee in your state’s presidential primary (or other nomination process).

2. Please pray for him on a regular basis.

3. Please consider volunteering for his campaign. You can view his website http://www.mikehuckabee.com.

4. Please make a donation TODAY to his campaign http://www.mikehuckabee.com.

Do not think that your gift is insignificant because you cannot give thousands of dollars. A campaign like Huckabee’s will only work when thousands of friends network together giving, $25, $50, $100, or even just $10 each. Frankly, a campaign that receives $25 from 10,000 people is far stronger than a campaign that receives $10,000 from 25 people.

Grassroots conservatives often complain about the big-dollar types who try to control the process. The only solution is for a whole bunch of small-dollar people to stand together and give together. And the left has learned to drive millions of people to websites and to fund large campaigns based on grassroots supporters who contact their friends and urge them to get involved.

It is far safer for an organization like ours to sit silently on the sidelines for a long time. But, it is our judgment that we must get behind a conservative candidate who will provide a viable option to Hillary. Moreover, many of us have waited a long time for a presidential candidate who is a truly qualified and articulate man who shares our values down to his core. Mike Huckabee entered politics for the same reason that most of us began homeschooling. He wants a future that is grounded upon timeless values.

We think that the time is now. Please support Mike Huckabee.

Sincerely,
J. Michael Smith
HSLDA President

Michael P. Farris
HSLDA Chairman & General Counsel

Braden,

I agree with you, so what solution do you propose?

The problem is trial courts, that is county courts, play fast and loose with the US Constitution. State legislators enact laws to give teeth to certain state policies.

The best example of this is Ohio’s state policy of “protecting” third party relationships the third party forms with someone else’s children. Commonly called grandparent visitation rights laws. In Ohio, this could be virtually anyone who claims a close relationship with a child. These laws are not dependent on any standard, does not depend on the fitness of a parent, or whether the parent has never compromised on their custody of their children, whether contact has been denied, whether the child is in any eminent danger without the visits, or on whether the parent has a record. The only circumstance Ohio’s laws turn on is the marital status of the parent. According to Ohio, once a (custodial) parent finds themselves single, for whatever reason, then the State feels it has a “compelling governmental interest” to preserve any relationship anyone has with children of single-parent households.
This is one step away from the Washington statute that was at issue in the Troxel case.

Because Ohio “limits” these statutes to cases of children of unmarried parents, it claims the stautes are “narrowly tailored to meet a “compelling government interest”

States then use the “best interest of the child” umbrella to support the “compelling government interest” of third party visitation statutes. Originally meant to protect children rightfully from abuse, neglect, and otherwise dangerous parents, the states conveniently use this mantra to find new ways to expand its powers. The trial courts have such broad discretion, they can use anything they want to rule against the parent and call it “best interest of the child”. The trial courts have no interest in parental rights or in the details of the Constitution. They feel the “best interest of the child” trumps any Constitutional rights parents may have.

Mind you, in none of the Ohio cases are children ever in eminent danger or has it ever been found that children suffer permanent psychological harm from lack of a nonparent tertiary relationship. That is not the test, so there is no need to prove this.

In sum, Ohio has devalued the importance of the parental relationship and decision-making. Trial courts use the parent’s testimony against them and substitute the judgment of the fit parent with that of the court’s, in order to comply with a state policy about nonparent relationships. This is plain unconstitutional nonsense.

History teaches us what happens when the State rips happy children out of the loving arms of good, fit parents on the basis of State Policy.

Unless parents do something about it, we will steadily march down this Orwellian path.