Tuesday, December 5, 2006

Constitutional Amendment for Homeschooling?

Sam Blumenfeld penned an article for Worldnet Daily discussing how the "internationalization of legal relations" may force us to add language to our Constitution to protect our rights because of globalization. Unfortunately, Mike Farris/HSLDA is pursuing the idea of a Constitutional Amendment; one that protects parents rights. It's a really bad idea as far as I am concerned. I have heard the argument that we should be pro-active, etc., but how about we stick to the laws we have, and remember these words:
"But if we are to be told by a foreign Power ... what we shall do, and what we shall not do, we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little."
George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton, May 8, 1796
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
Doesn't it make sense just to remind these justices, like Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, that their job is not to look to foreign law, but just to pay attention to our own law?
I see no need to muddy up the Constitution just because the judicial system is not doing their job properly. May I remind people that judges can be impeached as well.
We ought to be fixing the problem by demanding that judges stop looking to European or African law and concentrate on our own laws when coming up with opinions, instead of turning the Constitution into mush.
Deborah Stevenson of NHELD has said, "the Constitution is a LIMIT ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It is not meant to be a document GRANTING RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE".


Jodi said...

Deborah Stevenson of NHELD has said, "the Constitution is a LIMIT ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. It is not meant to be a document GRANTING RIGHTS TO THE PEOPLE".

I don't understand why people are opposed to limiting the amount of intrusion the government has into a parent's responsibility. The ammendment Mr. Farris has proposed "limits federal government." It isn't about "granting" any right to the people.

To be opposed to a Parents Rights ammendment is like being opposed to the First ammendment for free speech. The first ammendment doesn't GIVE people the right to free speech, it LIMITS the government's ability to interfere with that right. That's how the parent's right ammendment would work as well. It doesn't "give" parents the right to be the parent, it categorically tells the government to stop interfering with parents who are doing just that: being parents.

I really don't understand why people are opposed to it. I would like to understand if someone has a valid argument (i.e. if the ammendment passes, this is how it could be used to make things worse then they are now).

Judy Aron said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Judy Aron said...

Well Jodi it's like this:
We don't need an amendment.
Judges just need to stop looking to International law to come up with decisions and as it is now, the United States Supreme Court has made case law which already says that it is a parent's fundamental right to control the upbringing and education of their child.

Additionally we ought now be signing treaties and conventions that undermine the authority of our sovereignty or our Constitution.

This action by Farris is merely an attempt to fear monger, get new members and make a name for himself.

I would like you to read a very well written commentary on this subject by Mary McCarthy at

an excerpt:
According to Alan Carlson of the Rockford Institute: "Federal parents' rights legislation sounds like a good idea, but it makes for dangerous policy. Family policy has historically been regarded as a Tenth Amendment issue, one that's within the purview of the states."
However, the problem will not be solved by having the federal government get into the business of defining parents' rights. That the federal parental rights legislation would redesign American family policy is illustrated in an analysis offered by Senator John
Warner (R-VA), a co-sponsor of the Senate version: "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.)

Dana said...

I agree, at least in principle. I'm not one for amendments and actually fall into that camp that would have opposed the Bill of Rights to begin with because everything there is already protected by the Constitution's absence of saying anything about it.

And the first line of defense should be to remove judges who refuse to do their sworn in duty to uphold the constitution as well as not signing these treaties.

But we will do it anyway, I'm afraid. And I don't know that a constitutional amendment will save us from what the outcome will be.