Why We Need a Parental Rights Amendment

Eighty years ago the Supreme Court declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Thirty years ago the Court continued this line of reasoning with the pronouncement that the “primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Yet in 2000, when the State of Washington gave any person the ability to override a good parent’s decision about visitation by simply claiming that it would be “best” for children to allow the third-party to have visitation rights, in the Supreme Court:

· There were six separate opinions and none reached a five-vote majority

· Justice Thomas was the only Justice to clearly state that parental rights receive the same high legal standard of protection as other fundamental rights

· Justice Scalia held that parents have no constitutionally protected rights whatsoever

Support for a high-view of parental rights has been seriously undermined by the current Court.

As a consequence, numerous lower federal courts refuse to treat parental rights as deserving of protection as a fundamental right.

At the same time, America is poised to adopt the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. President Obama supports this treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a leading advocate of this treaty for over twenty years. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has “promised” that this treaty will be ratified during this term of Congress.

If this treaty is ratified:

· The laws of all 50 states on children and parents would be superseded by this international law by virtue of a specific provision of the US Constitution which expressly declares treaties to be supreme over state law. Virtually all law on children and parents is state law.

· Good parents would no longer be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children. Instead, the government would have the authority to overrule all parents on any decision concerning the child if the government believed it could make a better decision.

· Parents could no longer spank their children.

· Children would have the legal right to choose their own religion. Parents would be permitted only to give advice.

· America would be under a binding legal obligation to massively increase its federal spending on children’s programs.

The only kind of law that can override a treaty is the Constitution of the United States. State laws or state constitutions cannot override treaties. There is no guarantee that federal statutes could override treaties—moreover, we enter a binding legal promise to obey a treaty when we ratify it. America should not promise to obey a treaty and then claim it is appropriate to obey the treaty only when we want to. America of all nations must respect the rule of law.

There is only one possible solution for the eroding support for parental rights in the Supreme Court that can also stop the encroachment of international law.

We need to place the time-honored test of parental rights, as recognized by the Supreme Court for over seventy years, into the explicit text of the Constitution.

We cannot wait until our rights are formally demolished. We must act now to stop international law and protect these two key principles:

· Fit parents should be allowed to direct the upbringing of their children.

· American legislators, not international tribunals, should make the public policy for America on families and children.

If you believe these two principles, become a supporter of parental rights by signing the online petition.

Do Our Children Belong to Us or the Government?

A Letter from Michael Farris,
President of ParentalRights.org.

Dear Friend of Parental Rights,

I was in the United States Senate this past week meeting with lawyers for a Senate office. They told me directly what I have been hearing indirectly on a regular basis ever since the election.

Those who want to change family policy in America to comply with international law are preparing a full-scale effort to seek ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child during this next Congress. Barbara Boxer recently told a planning group that they intend to use children’s health care as leverage to seek ratification of this UN children’s rights treaty.

Please link to our website to see a succinct summary of the problems with this UN treaty.

The strength of their forces has been greatly increased with the addition of Hillary Clinton as the nominee for Secretary of State. She will have direct control over the submission of this treaty to the Senate and will acquire the authority under international law to sign any other treaty on any subject.

Hillary Clinton was the person who made the announcement for the Convention on the Rights of the Child when her husband’s administration signed the treaty. Seeking its ratification is a lifelong dream for her.

Our situation is grim if we were to look only at the position of the elected officials.

However, recent post-election polling demonstrates that almost 70% of Americans do not believe that the use of international law in American courts on such matters is appropriate. Less than 20% favor the use of international law. (The rest are undecided). Virtually every sub-group in America opposes this kind of use of international law.

America is on our side. However, we have to be able to get the word out to help people hear the truth about the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Our proposed Parental Rights Amendment will permanently stop this treaty. So we have a one-two punch planned for the internationalists.

First, we must build a huge grassroots movement of patriotic Americans who believe that good families should be able to raise their children without worrying about compliance with international law.

Second, these same grassroots forces need to convince our elected officials that we are not content with defeating this treaty for today alone. We insist on a permanent solution. We need the Parental Rights Amendment.

I need you to do two things to help this become a reality. First, please send a copy of this letter to everyone you know who believes in parental rights and American patriotism.

Second, we need to raise a war chest to get prepared to launch a massive grassroots campaign. The other side has millions of dollars left in their campaign coffers, and they have the President of the United States, the Secretary of State and all the media waiting to carry their message.

We can win the debate because we have the truth on our side. And we have public opinion. But we won’t win if we can’t reach people.

Will you please make as big a gift as you can to support Parentalrights.org? Here is what they are saying about us. At the hearing which featured Barbara Boxer, one of the speakers said that the people who will oppose this treaty are the “narcissistic sovereignty crowd.” In other words, those who love America first are so guilty of excessive self-love that he describes us as having the mental illness of narcissism.

This is their real heart. Not only do they want international law to control our families. They think that we are mentally ill for loving America.

It is time for those of us who believe in loving our families and loving America to rise up! We will not surrender this country or our children to such people.

Get involved today! The battle is about to begin.

For God, family, and America,
Michael Farris