S. J. Res. 16 reads:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to parental rights.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress:
`Article--
`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 child involved 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.
`Section 4. This article shall take effect after the date of ratification.'.
H.J. Res. 42 reads:
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘Article--
‘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.’.
Well-meaning individuals think this will keep the government from interfering with your rights as parents to educate your child how you see fit, this is a back door for those who abuse mothers and children to continue to abuse. Think it cannot happen? When a court gets it right and protects a mother and child from being abused by husband/boyfriend/dad, this same abuser will claim his rights under SJ Res 16 or HJ Res 42 and will be able to get the courts out of HIS life, and as such have the ability to continue abusing the mother and possibly even children. This will be because the courts are a state (read government) entity and as such should not and can not be able to interfere with his parental rights.
Is this what we intended when this bill was created? If an abused mother tries to assert any rights under state or federal law protecting her rights to be free from abuse, the father can then simply assert his rights under these resolutions. Who wins in this situation?
Now who supports these bills? Who does not? We will not engage in finger pointing, we will simply alert the voting public as to who is NOT supporting these bills, possibly for the very same reason we give. You can draw your own conclusion as to who is supporting by simple elimination :-)
Now the subsequent posts on this will be below this article for you to read. When I have completed each state's post, I will post links to each individual post in this article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As a survivor I do understand your concern, but, I don't think that this will change the abuse laws that are set out by the state governments. And if it doesn't clearly state in the full of this amendment where the line of discipline and abuse is drawn then I would imagine an amendment to that will also be made. Clearly the government and state governments understand that there is a line and it will be up to each state individually to determine that line probably. I know in the state of Tennessee parents are allowed to discipline there children if needed physically. I belive the term spanking is what they call it but, it is also noted that with the exception of welts, bruises or marks that dont go away within a few minutes are considered unreasonable and abusive. I personally belive that is basicly fair. While, I support my president and believe his intentions were good, I don;t think he saw the whole of this nor understood it. I lean more toward democratic views but, can not agree with his decision on this. I do oppose ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I believe it will bring more harm than good. Clearly there is already too much crooked injustice in the child protective service agencies. I have worked closely with survivors of domestic violence and all too often they are punished because the CPS agencies unlawfully take their children with no court order. This is not at all legal but, they continue to get away with it. they are required by law to have a court order to remove a child from the home if they have significant proof to the courts that the said child is infact being abused or in danger of abuse. Unfortunately, often times when the mother seeks help her children are taken from her instead of her receiving the proper care along with her children to ensure that the children are not put through even more unnecessary stress. I understand some fall through the cracks, but, in the southeastern states I know for a fact this is how they run the show. Most parents do not know they have the right to refuse that they take their children and even most 'law enforcement officers' do not know the laws and just assume that the CPS has the right to do this. They simply do not. If anyone ever tried this with my children they would quickly realize that they are not going to violate my rights as a parent nor the rights of my children.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={E7900CE9-7AE0-47B3-81F6-CC16B7CAA8A0}
ReplyDeleteThat web address clear shows that the full on amendment does in fact address abuse.
ReplyDelete