Last week, Michael Farris tweeted that Senator Jim DeMint had introduced the parental rights amendment into the Senate, followed by a Friday tweet announcing that the parental rights amendment had garnered 100 supporters in the House. After Michael Farris predicted that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) would come before the senate in the fall or spring, I figured the debate would begin heating up again. Recent government actions in England and Sweden seem to have added a little fuel to the fire.
Eric Potter urges me to take a look at the Parental Rights Amendment, emphasizing:
Do not wait until our great nation becomes a nation where the government controls the minds and souls of our next generation.
Even Crimson Wife, of Bending the Twigs, who seems to be about as excited about a parental rights amendment as I am, is having second thoughts.
I’ve been on the fence when it comes the proposed Parental Rights Amendment but with the UNCRC being used as justification for proposed restrictions on homeschooling, I’m leaning more and more towards supporting it…
But do we really need a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights? I know the argument. Once signed and ratified, a treaty becomes the supreme law of the land, replacing state and federal law unless it directly contradicts something already in our Constitution. The treaty in question of course being the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I have a problem with this. I have a problem with it for the reasons I mentioned last time I asked whether we really needed a parental rights amendment. Now that this treaty may indeed come before the Senate in the near future (although maybe not quite as soon as Farris predicts), I have another problem with it–a serious one.
It is a distraction.
Ratifying the treaty requires 2/3 of the Senate to vote for it. Sixty seven senators. An amendment, on the other hand, will require 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states to sign on to an amendment which hasn’t seen considerable success even at the state level. At the federal level, it will stall for all the same reasons it stalled in state legislatures. In the meantime, we will lose valuable time which we could be using to research the treaty, determine its strengths and weaknesses and formulate a reasoned response.
In other words, if we are afraid of the treaty, we should oppose the treaty, not use some “backdoor measure.” Especially one with so little hope of success and one which may be built on a faulty foundation to begin with. And perhaps we should take a page or two from the opposition’s playbook.
Looking specifically at the Parental Rights Amendment push in Colorado, conservatives were initially quite confident, with 76% of registered voters supporting it. A number of organizations opposed the amendment, however they did not swing opinion from 76% in favor to 57% opposed by rallying their base and getting the information out. Nor did they do it by introducing alternative legislation. Instead, they spent some time researching beginning a full year before they expected the measure to be put on the ballot.
Immediately upon becoming campaign manager, Mendez urged the campaign to conduct a detailed statewide poll of voters’ reactions to the amendment. “It was one of the smartest things we did,” says deputy campaign manager Steadman, “because it told us what issues resonated with voters.” The Gutmacher Institute
From this survey, they found that Colorado voters were indeed wary of the government overstepping its bounds with regards to parenting, but they also found several points about the amendment itself that concerned voters. It was from these concerns that they developed their talking points rather than from the concerns of their own members.
The American Family Association, the Home School Legal Defense Association, and Eagle Forum, on the other hand, are very good at speaking the language of those who agree with them. (I have little doubt this applies to many of the organizations on the Allied Organizations List.) They know how to spread information and action points quickly and rally their base. Unfortunately, after awhile it gets to be like yelling into an echo chamber.
Imagine if we were able to step out of that chamber and actually communicate with other parents. What if we could focus the discussion on what the average American parent worries about rather than what the average conservative, Christian homeschooler worries about? Would it perhaps be conceivable, then, that we could end up with 34 senators opposed to ratification?
Because 34 senators is all we need if we can successfully hit the UNCRC directly.
homeschool homeschooling, UNCRC Convention on the Rights of the Child Michael Farris Parental Rights Amendment
Good thinking, good post.
One thought I’d add:
“Imagine if we were able to step out of that chamber and actually communicate with other parents. What if we could focus the discussion on what the average American parent worries about. . .”
Imagine if we were able to actually communicate with other parents not as “other” to be exploited, but as part of a larger “us” to work with collegially — and not just about our worries.
I don’t view taking the time and effort to talk to people about their own concerns as “exploitation.”
It sure can be though, if it’s done not because hsers really want to find out what other parents think but only because we mean to sell them on what we’ve pre-determined is to OUR benefit.
What if we really communicate with them instead? We might find out our common concerns for children’s education and welfare lie elsewhere and we can collaborate on other efforts instead — and if we’re open-minded to that possibility going in, then it wouldn’t be exploitative, even if it turns out the rights amendment IS their main concern.
Excellent post.
In other words, if we are afraid of the treaty, we should oppose the treaty, not use some “backdoor measure.”
That’s a MUCH better strategy for tackling the silly UN resolution than a Constitutional Amendment.
Besides, I have a problem in general with singling out any kind of group rights (parents, kids, animal lovers, animal haters, etc. ad infinitum). Rights belong to individuals, and the minute one set of individuals is set apart and viewed as having rights special only to them, then another group wants the same, and then another, then another. Much simpler and more to the point would be to uphold individual rights for all individuals, regardless of which (any, all, or none) particular groups they are a part of (by choice or not).
But I digress. Good post!
Most studies (if not all) begin with someone who has their own goals. But I don’t think the CRC is specifically a homeschool issue. Actually, I think it has very little to do with homeschooling. It’s just that homeschoolers are a little more used to looking at the state with a wary eye.
I’m more worried that this will pass through without any kind of serious consideration or discussion than anything else. As you pointed out before, we can add reservations to the signature, but at this point I don’t know that the average American knows enough about the treaty to know what reservations they have about it.
So long as groups are going to throw money at this, it may as well be in the direction of really understanding the treaty, how it is affecting other nations (as well as how it isn’t)and looking into concerns of all parents.
Agree with Jenn on not piece-mealing this principle:
“uphold individual rights for all individuals”
“Most studies (if not all) begin with someone who has their own goals.”
Which is why there are ethical principles for human studies (including simple surveys) to guard against deception, exploitation, falsified data etc –
The problem I have with the PRA is essentially the same that I have with the UNCRC- they are both far too vague and could lead to unintended consequences. The real problem IMHO is activist judges who use vague wording to read stuff into the Constitution that the writers never intended. For example the idea that there’s a “right to privacy” in the 14th Amendment supposedly guaranteeing women access to legalized abortion on demand. Unfortunately, I don’t see the problem of activist judges legislating from the bench going away any time soon…
True, so much of legal language requires interpretation through the adversarial process. . .maybe if we really studied up with other parents and citizens, we’d wind up calling for a Constitutional Convention? THAT would be exciting.
As a practicing lawyer who has handled lots of specific parental rights cases (including freaky/nasty stuff), I take the position that we need to talk/act/think/organize/vote/petition/pray NOW. The knee-jerk instincts of the voting public are to pass BIG laws when some bad facts come up. It only takes one nightmare with an abused child to get the legislature to do SOMETHING, ANYTHING, for the children. If we don’t have good arguments and political lines of defense in place BEFORE things get interesting, we’ll get steamrolled by a well-intentioned legislature AFTER they do.
It only takes one criminal parent to wound one precious child–but that one criminal can trigger a political landslide that will leave “out of the mainstream” parents up the creek. And when that happens, it’s going to take more than a Harvard law degree and fifteen years of law practice on the front lines of freedom to protect decent parents who march to the beat of a different drummer.
I’m very wary of amending the Constitution as well. For one thing I respect the Constitution greatly and therefore approach any changes to it with caution. I am very concerned about inintended consequences attatched to amendments (or any law). Parents already have ultimate authority in their homes to do what parents do (no, that does not extend to the right to take the life or liberty of the child). We would be much better off opposing any restrictions on parental rights than demanding that a new right be written in to the Constitution.
Hey Scott!
I don’t think that there is any comparison between the collective intellectual firepower of the Founding Fathers and the current group of politicians. Who today is the equal of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, etc.?
I’m not saying that there aren’t bright individuals in elected office today, but for whatever reason (television & other media and institutional schools are a couple that come to mind) they simply aren’t the kind of geniuses that wrote our Constitution.
The Founding Father’s benefit from selection bias. We only remember the good stuff. Thomas Jefferson, for all his brilliance, died deeply in debt due to his inability to live within his means, and he practically invented the art of negative campaigning in his battle with Adams for the Presidency. Franklin abandoned his family and spent many years in France cavorting with women his daughter’s age. Washington didn’t so much win the war with brilliant Generalship as he did not lose long enough for the English to make some spectacularly bad decisions and hand the Colonists their independence. The Constitution was a compromise document, so brilliantly written that it needed to be amended almost immediately
The Founding Father’s were just men, thrown into a critical juncture of history and made enough good decisions that history came out on their side. I think most of them would be pretty aghast at the level of reverence we hold for them today. They rightly did not see themselves that way.
Good point — and as a group perhaps because of their scientific curiosity, Joseph Priestly etc, they were more Deist than “Christian” and definitely not what we think of as born-again Christian, in their views of whether divinity was involved in human affairs (deism believes not.)
Some of the Founding Fathers may not have been the most orthodox of Christians, but aside from Jefferson and Thomas Paine it’s a stretch to call them Deists. In the interest of space, I won’t quote them but a good collection can be found here.
I agree with Scott; truth is that if we don’t place this principle in the Constitution now, we cannot stop the 3-prong assault from international law, domestic judges, and domestic international law professors. We need this amendment.
On the point that this amendment is going to be difficult to pass, I must respectfully disagree. I have a friend who is working currently doing congressional research for the passage of the Parental Rights Amendment, and his findings have been astouding. A Zogby poll was taken earlier this year, showing that a majority (read “between 60-80%”) of Americans from every age group, race/job demographic, state, and faith support parental rights. This Amendment has picked up 50 co-sponsors in less than 3 months, and is gaining in momentum (it is at 100 co-sponsors plus the main sponsor, which can be found here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HJ00042:@@@P).
We can do this; we must do this.
Watching the stars,
Centaur
“I watch the skies, for it is mine to watch.” — Glenstorm
Oh sure Centaur, a poll would never be specifically worded to make sure the outcome supports a certain point of view. That would never happen in America.
“Do you believe the Constitution should be amended to allow parents absolute dominion over their children, up to and including the rights of parents to refuse to provide a well rounded education to their children, and the right to force a pregnant teenage child to deliver (or abort) a baby against her will.”
80% against, maybe, when people really understand what they are voting for.
Passing a PRA (or any constitutional amendment) takes a lot of public relations, public debate, private politicking, and personal persistence. In the case of the PRA, it takes intelligent people who can make the case for liberty in the face of all-too-real horror stories.
The theory of justice behind the proposed PRA is that parents CAN criminally abuse their children, and should be criminally punished for criminal acts. But the fact that some parents are criminals does not mean the government can or should standardize parents who act in what they believe to be the best interests of their children.
Here’s the problem: 51% of the voters are more concerned about innocent kids getting hurt than they are about government invading your right to share your values with your child. Democracies are TOUGH on family freedom–review your history, and you’ll see what I mean.
The theoretically-correct protection for minority rights against majority power is a constitutional wall. If we had family-friendly judges who believed in slapping the government around when it deserves it, I wouldn’t be pushing for a constitutional amendment. But that’s not what we have–”conservative” judges (like Scalia) are all for the power of the state in most cases. And “liberal” judges (like Breyer) really do believe “it takes a village to raise a child.”
So–we can work together now or run for Costa Rica later. I’m doing my part to keep America safe for my grandchildren.
How about you?
(Hi, JJ!)
Centaur, that is specifically why I looked at the parental rights amendment in Colorado. Huge support among the citizenry as it was to be put on the ballot. But a few concerns were hit hard and regardless of polling indicating 76% of registered Colorado voters supported the amendment, a significant majority voted it down.
It isn’t nearly as hard to drum up enough concern for a measure to stop it from moving forward as it is to drum up enough support to change the status quo.
And COD, I disagree with your history on one point…that the Constitution needed to be amended almost immediately. Yes, the states wanted it…wanted extra guarantees that the government wouldn’t step on their toes. I like how Hamilton put it in Federalist 84:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were generated. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.
They wanted to amend it to guarantee that powers not granted to the central government would not be taken by the central government. I can’t help but wonder if he was right, especially since it seems increasingly that our only rights are those granted in the Bill of Rights.
Scott, my real question is whether or not this amendment will really do much to curtail what we’re worried about. If we are worried about a judiciary that is out of control (or going out of control), what possible text can we insert to reign them in? They don’t apply the law, they interpret it.
I understand that this is “just” family court and that the decision isn’t even published, but I can’t help but think of the case in NJ where the court was shocked at the homeschooling law in NJ. Citing the 1965 decision in State v. Vaughn, they came up with a whole plan for how homeschools should be regulated. They can have their opinion, but where are they granted that power?
If they are going outside of the text before them now, how will putting more text before them change anything?
Okay, this is out-of-touch Canucky me but if a group is out to change a fundamental document of great importance to governing the nation rather then work against the UNCRC directly then maybe the point in the first place is changing that fundamental document, not the UNCRC.
With some of the names mentioned supported the amendment I tend to wonder how much dominionist goals have to do with matters. I’m probably too paranoid.
Scott said:
“. In the case of the PRA, it takes intelligent people who can make the case for liberty in the face of all-too-real horror stories.”
Exactly. And how the heck is that gonna happen at the same time that the same argument is being made on the same Christian Newswire, both for and against such special federal rights, by the SAME PERSON??
Dawn, the cynical side of me says it has to do with neither. The cynical side of me wonders how much they just want to rally support and prove a need for themselves. And that really is only because I see this as an almost sure failure. Maybe I’m totally wrong on that assessment…maybe it has better chances than I think.
Mostly I think people are just trying to protect themselves and their interests, something all of us should do. What these groups do well, they do very well. I’m just not so sure they know how to reach beyond their base and after watching the presidential race, I’m wondering if it is even possible.
I’m not sure how certain portions of that base would respond if the organizations they give money to began broadening their arguments.
Good evening,
I appreciate being quoted in the blog and would like to provide a few counterpoints to the doubts about the amendment.
– First, I obviously believe that the amendment is our best hope. However, I do not see it as our only hope. It is our best hope because it effectively closes the door on the UNCRC indefinitely AND prevents the slow intrusion of international law that is already occurring. Simple defeat of the UNCRC just delays it from rising again as a phoenix and does nothing to stop our own country’s judges from using it in court rulings (already occuring, see the Parental Rights.Org website for full explanation). Our lesser hope is exactly what you hope for, the “no” to the UNCRC. However, I do not see the two as mutually exclusive battles. They are so interdependent, that the campaigns against the UNCRC and for the amendment help each other. In fact, even the CRC supporters’ efforts make it easier to show American parents why the issue is urgent. I believe the interplay of these forces will have the best chance of awakening parents in America.
– Second, I agree that if we could return constitutional law and the federal courts to the ideal theory of law that we had for 2 centuries, we would be much better off. However, what is the plan for accomplishing this feat? There must be more than just saying no to the UN CRC, the current living constitution perspective, and the other international law that invades our country. However, until that un-presented plan is successful, we live in a country where the constitution is seen as organic and as a living document, and thus somewhat interpretable at judge’s whims. Why are we safer in a constitutional environment with implied parental rights that even Justice Scalia publicly now denies (Troxel v. Granville 2000 Supreme Court Case)? Why wouldn’t explicit rights be harder to malign and misinterpret than implied rights?
– Third, I have no idea when the CRC might be presented to the Senate for consideration, but I can look at the sky and make a guess at the warnings signs. These include: a recent conference of CRC supporters at Georgetown, which discussed how they would use emotional appeals to win the battle rather than true debate; a group of U.S. Representatives that are sponsoring a House Resolution in support of the CRC; a new website emerging with a petition page supporting the CRC; my own state’s legislature denying a vote on a state resulution opposing the CRC due to underhanded tactics: and probably more, but hopefully I have made my point. The CRC supporters are gathering forces. The time is now to act, not next year. As soon as the opposition think they can win, the CRC will come before the Senate. We can’t wait to begin the grassroots campaign (and our amendment supporters are doing just that).
– Finally, I agree with communicating with American parents. I have been trying to do that over the past few months. However, most are far too busy or doubt the seriousness of the CRC threat. I have offered numerous times to dialogue about doubts, questions, or concerns of the CRC or the PRA. Rarely does anyone take me up on that offer. I offer that again here. (I will say that I am very thankful for the number of posts on this site, although I wish it were 100000 so that more people would hear about this issue.)
In closing, I believe that the amendment is our best hope and that advocating for it goes hand in hand with defeating the CRC. And having worked in organizations for a while, I have learned that people usually like to see a solution offered, not just something opposed. The amendment offers a solution that is real and effective.
Thank you for your continued effort to alert others about the CRC. I am ready and willing to dialogue with those doubting my position.
Stop the Treaty – http://nheld.com/StopTheTreaty.htm
With a constitutional amendment, the road is cleared for the courts to say that the federal government also has the right to regulate.
Making the “rights of parents” fundamental rights in the U.S. Constitution raises those rights to the federal level. The federal government then is better able to assume a power to regulate those rights. The Supreme Court already has “interpreted” the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children as something that can be regulated by government. Up until now, however, the courts have said that it is up to the States to regulate that right. It has always been easier to fight bad legislation on a states level rather then at a federal level.
Let’s not give the federal government any more ammunition to wrest power from the people. Both the PRA and the CRC are horrible pieces of legislation. Both should be avoided entirely.
HSLDA and their cohorts are not doing us any favors at all in promoting PRA. They are doing what they have done on a state level – giving power to the government where it doesn’t belong in the first place.
All we need to do is get 67 Senators to just say NO to CRC and give them a very sound reason as to why this treaty should be rejected all together. Why isn’t HSLDA putting all of their resources and efforts into doing just that? I wonder what’s in it for them to pursue federal legislation, which is what they have been doing all along on other measures regarding homeschooling.
The PRA legislation is just as bad – if not worse – for us all. It cedes our parental rights to the federal government.
I am sorry – I meant 34 Senators… on above post
Remember That Michael Jackson “Homeschooled” His Kids
Judy an JJ, we share the same ultimate goals even though we’ve come to opposite conclusions about the best means to achieve those ends. I think we all want to preserve family freedom against government interference–the only question is how that can actually be achieved.
I spent 14 years on the phones with families facing all kinds of nightmare situations. Many involved obvious overreaching by the government, but there were plenty of other cases where the government was trying to punish the guilty and protect the innocent. I’m looking for a theory of parental rights that produces a workable and just result in the large majority of cases. The draft PRA has the merit of trying to put the essential principles of such a theory into words so that judges can apply it in hard cases.
JJ, you raise the Michael Jackson meme–and I think we should all be thinking through that nightmare scenario VERY carefully. If Michael Jackson had not been “rich and famous,” he most likely would have lost his kids a LONG time before his untimely death. As a lawyer who would love to be a judge, I’m looking for a theory of parental rights that WORKS when “Michael Jackson” appears before the bench, whether he is rich or poor, famous, infamous, or obscure.
This comment may not be the best place for this, but I’ll contribute my four principles of parental rights here, for what it’s worth. I think parental rights are “inalienable,” “sacred,” “terminable,” and “governmental.” I’ll explain what those mean briefly and let you guys rip them apart.
I think parental rights have to be “inalienable” because that means you can’t SELL them. (You can’t sell yourself into slavery, you can’t enter a contract to allow yourself to be killed, you can’t sell your kids–liberty, life, and parenthood are all “inalienable rights.”)
I think parental rights are “sacred” because every (good) parent treats their child as “a matter of ultimate concern,” to quote the Supreme Court quoting theologian Paul Tillich. Parents act as if their parental obligations are “sacred” whether they think of themselves as “religious,” “spiritual,” “secular,” or otherwise. (I also think that the current standard of protection for religious liberty is a bad joke. I’m not saying parents should get the same low protections as believers–I’m saying that their motives and actions are so parallel that a wise and just law would treat them much the same.)
Parental right are terminable. An adult’s power over a child ends when the child is big enough to escape the parent’s power (in our society, at 18 or earlier). I think the law should allow a child to escape the power of a criminal parent even earlier. Under Old Testament law, most criminally abusive parents would be executed, leaving the children to be raised by other family members. I strongly believe in terminating parental rights in any case where the Old Testament would terminate the parent. (I call this a “virtual death penalty” for child sexual abuse and other crimes.)
Parental rights are “governmental” because the family is the original cell of social life, the first government the newborn human knows. Under American law, higher levels of government are SUPPOSED to defer to lower levels as much as possible. You’d never know it from reading the news, but the day-to-day practice in the courts is very deferential. (I’ve mostly seen this when I’ve asked courts to set aside the action of a school board–judges HATE to second-guess public schools.) In my opinion, a well-articulated theory of parental rights would treat parents with at least the same deference we show mayors, school superintendents, police officers, and so forth. It’s not that these human beings can’t do evil–it’s just that they NEED a certain degree of autonomy to do good. If you file a police brutality lawsuit every time a cop cuffs a suspect, you’re going to wind up with no cops and lots of criminals. Federal courts apply “the doctrine of official immunity” to keep cops and other government officials from being sued unless a reasonable official in their position would have known that what they were doing was wrong at the time they did it. Officials who make mistakes in the “grey zone” shouldn’t get punished for it.
When you treat parental rights as inalienable, sacred, terminable, and governmental, you can get the right results most of the time.
Still thinking but so far, so good. I’ve always appreciated how you approach these analyses an dyes, it is judicial imo.
Pondering point four: parental rights that are governmental. This would be ver-ry interesting as a thought experiment, particularly for individuals and groups who tend to see all “government” as undesirable and to be minimized in interference with individuals. Yet as governors themselves, are they so careful to protect the rights of the individual? Would we/they be willing to respect American freedoms such as the ideals of say, the First Amendment, and at least keep them in mind in our governmental role over children?
Scott, one big obstacle to your approach just occurred to me. Last night I was reading news of the radical “personhood” movement reviving in some states, anti-abortion groups allying to push the political frame of zygotes as fully protected persons, even before implantation in the womb, which would outlaw even various birth control methods, thus affecting not just the rights of parents but even potential parents trying not to become parents in the first place! (Haven’t they equal “parent” rights to the rest of us, if their potential child-person is to have equal rights? Do I as the mother have less right to control my own child-person after birth than before? Etc.)
Two thoughts to work through in judicial philosophy then — first, wouldn’t it be quite a shift in the opposite direction of present conservative parent rights politics, to argue the State should take sides in law between parent and child, and for a child’s rights over the parent’s?
The other thought is a wilder one, promted when I heard Joe the Plumber railing about illegal immigrants as if they aren’t even persons, much less American citizens. It occurred to me that American citizenship is still based on BIRTH here, so even if all our other laws are changed to declare zygotes to be natural persons, it won’t make them American citizens without Constitutional amendment, right? Again a dilemma for conservatives! — whatsoever Joe the Plumber would do to the least of the illegal immigrants in terms of denying health care or freedom or the right of pregnant women without citizenship but on track to give birth here, he might be doing to us . . .
One more thought, reading about the NEA annual convention this week. Arne Duncan quoted by Education Week:
THAT is the political reality we too face in our home education “system” of laws and regulations and public perceptions. So it’s not the time (in my professional or personal judgment) for home education politics to be defending “adult rights” rather than “children, right.”
I’m not sure how much is served oversimplifying an argument and then claiming it is contradictory. I’m still trying to piece the logic, but one point: citizenship is by parentage as well as birth. John McCain was a citizen because his parents were citizens even though he was born outside the United States. My children are both American and Australian by nature of their parentage. It isn’t about physical locality at birth.
If we want to put the emphasis on children’s rights, I don’t quite understand why they don’t exist and aren’t part of the discussion until this magical moment of birth…which even then seems only contingent on the parent’s will in such cases as botched abortions where infants survive, or these cases in Canada that fall under their infanticide laws. And then there is that professor whose name escapes me who argues that birth is no magical moment that suddenly transfers personhood and advocates abortion through at least thirty days after birth.
More to say, but restless children indicates my attentions are needed elsewhere.
Who’s oversimplifying? It isn’t about phsyical locality but it IS about birth!
McCain wasn’t a citizen until he was BORN to American parents. The moment of citizenship is still conveyed in the birthing, not before — whether the expecting parents are citizens or not and wherever they are, only naturalization gets around the requirement of becoming an American by BIRTH. Right?
My concern is hardly oversimplied but the opposite. If children are persons but not citizens before birth then they would legally fall into some non-American citizen personhood that is treated as separate from the carrying mother and might then be impacted by restrictions intended for immigrants.
You’ve lost me. I don’t see the dilemma. Because I’m prolife, I somehow have to answer a citizenship problem or support illegal immigration or something? And the bit about Joe the Plumber doesn’t help much. All I know about him is that he asked Obama a question. I haven’t heard him say anything other than the question that made him famous.
At any rate, back to what I wanted to say this morning:
Scott, I like the way you explained the governmental aspect of parental rights. One questions that popped into my mind since I tend to view these things the other way around is why stop at the parent? At what point does the child have a say in his own government?
The thing I don’t like about these discussions is that it inevitably ends up pitting the rights of the child against the rights of the parent and in comes the state to enforce one side or the other. I don’t view it quite that way. Children have rights and interests, but I believe the parent is best suited to protect those rights and interests. And just like at every other level of government, until it is proven otherwise in any particular case, the higher levels of government should defer to the parent.
Largely see things eye to eye with Dana, and maybe on my person-but-not-citizen-before-birth concern where we don’t, Scott will see the sticking point and help us both?
Meanwhile, another thought:
We at NHEN used to talk about such deference to family as the most local government, using the Catholic concept of “subsidiarity.” Considering the prominence of Catholics in the present public marketplace of ideas, from the cable news media to the Supreme Court, we might want to get that going again?
Dana Said:
“. . . why stop at the parent? At what point does the child have a say in his own government?”
Exactly what I was thinking, with my question about parent as government, extending rightful freedoms such as freedom of religion and speech, to the citizen child.