or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Adding Parents Rights to the U.S. Constitution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Adding Parents Rights to the U.S. Constitution - Page 6

post #101 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andreac View Post
Because it DOES matter who the messenger is. If the KKK was sponsoring legislation, even if I agreed on the surface, I would be against it on general pricipal.

Okay, I see your point, but when it comes down to it, I don't agree.
Just hear me out...

If my child was dying of thirst in the desert, and there was only person left who had a glass of water... I wouldn't care if the water came from Hillary Clinton or George Bush... I would save my child.

That is what I see it as. Parental Rights, even if a different political party writes the amendment, STILL protect my children and grandchildren from vax, public school, on and on...

I mean, most people here consider themselves pro-choice. Would you shoot down a "pro-choice" constitutional amendment because it was from the 'wrong' party line?
post #102 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by siobhang View Post
what is the source of the threat - an international treaty, which would require the same voting numbers as a constitutional amendment which would prevent it?

OR Congress passing a law which is NOT an amendment, and therefore not requiring two thirds majority?

I am not saying that homeschooling is or isn't under threat. And I have no opinion on the use of an amendment or not to protect parental rights.

I AM saying that the threat coming from an international treaty such as the UN Convention on human rights is a complete non-issue.
I think the threat would come from our own government, state or federal.
It wasn't too many years ago that someone on capital hill tried to pass some crazy extremely anti-HS law, and HSers actually shut down the switchboards calling in.

Things like that come up, and HSLDA (and others) just want to put out a preventative measure to protect people.... BEFORE something happens.

I just don't think, when our own gov't is as iffy as it is on some issues, that we need to give children "rights" to an education, when we have seen what has happened in other countries with that. Who knows how OUR gov't would interpet that in 20 years (or next year)? My chilren sure don't want the "right" to be in public school- just ask them.
post #103 of 130
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=BelgianSheepDog;7235046]



Same with homeschooling. You want good loopholes in the compulsary public education laws. You don't need "parental rights" for that.

QUOTE]


Trust me, I don't want my HS rights based on loopholes.
post #104 of 130
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=maya44;7235255]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post

This means ONLY that the Federal law trumps the Constitution of any STATE!

A treaty trumps lets say Iowa's state consitituion. But NO TREATY trumps the U.S. Constitution!

A "parent's rights" amemdnment would be very dangerous meaning that childeren would have even less rights then they do now and leave them more vulnerable to child abuse.

The United States Supreme Court has already affirmed parents rights and rejected "Grandparent's rights". (See the Troxel case http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZO.html) And even if there was a constitutional "Parents Rights" amendment it WOULD NOT mean that your father in law could not sue you! He still could. You would simply mean that you still have to spend lots of money to show the court why that amendment means he should lose!
IMO...

That's why I want parental rights in the const--- because nothing trumps it!

If parent's rights were in the const it would make it very hard for states in have third-party visitation statutes in the first place, because they could very well be seen as unconstitutional. You can't be sued under a third-party visitation statute that does not exist. Problem solved.


Child abuse was, is, and will be illegal.
post #105 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maya44 View Post
Traxel is applicable in EVERY state. It is the pronoucment of the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling is law in every state. Just because you have a law behind you, or even a Constitutional Amendment does not mean that someone can't file suit against you!
Yes it could mean that!
If Parental Rights were in the Const, third-party visitation statues in the individual states could easily be seen as unconstitutionial and declared so. Therefore, parents could NOT be sued under them, since you cannot be sued under a statute that no longer exists. So parents would be free from this! (When you sue for TPV, you must do so under your specific state statute.)
post #106 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by maya44 View Post
Traxel is applicable in EVERY state. It is the pronoucment of the U.S. Supreme Court and its ruling is law in every state. Just because you have a law behind you, or even a Constitutional Amendment does not mean that someone can't file suit against you!
Maybe my point was that since traxel's case NY did not need to rewrite their case Traxell did not protect all the states with GPV rights and the Judge would have thrown out the GPs case in my situation if NY had. I know they have a right to "their day in court" but they have had more than a day they have had my child's whole life! They can say on stand that I am a wonderful mother that they believe what I am doing (not settleing this to an agreement witch is exactly what they are going for in court 6 hours a week and weekends and every holiday!!!!!!! they do not even know my child and that is my exact point neighter one of us know them and that was their own doing!)well they believe that what I am doing is what I believe to be in Ds's best interest the GM said she does not need to have a relationship wiht me to have one with my son!! She said she can not show my child the affection she wants to wiht me present!! that scares me what does she wanty to do with my child she can not do with me there???!!! yet this judge can still rule in their favor even though the GM has not come to any visit that was going on since court and the GF leave 1 hour to 35 minutes early and has a 2 hour visit every other week they have no real interest in my child they just want to have control and want to "get back at me for takeing their son to court" If I hadn't I would have been looked at as unfit and irresopnsable any mother would have after what he had done. I was told by their one child that is exactly why they are doing this. But still the judge could rule in their favor judges have in much worse cases so really how has traxell protected my case and many other cases in the US? if Traxell applied here I would not be going to court next week it would have been thrown at pre trial like my sons law guardiana nd my attorney thought it was going to be. I am not argueing I just want people to see the truth we as parents in most states have few rights when it comes to grandparents "rights" a grandparent should have no rights being an active grandparent is a privillage not a right an unfit parent does not make a fit grandparent!!! And a fit parent should be able to protect their child that is why this ammendment would be wonderful and so many parents can and would beable to protect their children the way they should have always been able to!

sorry again for rambleing
JA'sMama
post #107 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwebbal View Post
Uh, they are not doing good by my family. They actively fight against families like my own.

I can see where you are coming from jwebbal. If this was something that the ACLU was proposing I would be against it based solely on the fact that the ACLU makes my skin crawl.

I'm not meaning this to sound rude in any way, I just wanted to say I understand where you are coming from in not wanting to support this based on the fact that you don't like the HSLDA.
post #108 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by JA'sMama View Post
Maybe my point was that since traxel's case NY did not need to rewrite their case Traxell did not protect all the states with GPV rights and the Judge would have thrown out the GPs case in my situation if NY had. I know they have a right to "their day in court" but they have had more than a day they have had my child's whole life! They can say on stand that I am a wonderful mother that they believe what I am doing (not settleing this to an agreement witch is exactly what they are going for in court 6 hours a week and weekends and every holiday!!!!!!! they do not even know my child and that is my exact point neighter one of us know them and that was their own doing!)well they believe that what I am doing is what I believe to be in Ds's best interest the GM said she does not need to have a relationship wiht me to have one with my son!! She said she can not show my child the affection she wants to wiht me present!! that scares me what does she wanty to do with my child she can not do with me there???!!! yet this judge can still rule in their favor even though the GM has not come to any visit that was going on since court and the GF leave 1 hour to 35 minutes early and has a 2 hour visit every other week they have no real interest in my child they just want to have control and want to "get back at me for takeing their son to court" If I hadn't I would have been looked at as unfit and irresopnsable any mother would have after what he had done. I was told by their one child that is exactly why they are doing this. But still the judge could rule in their favor judges have in much worse cases so really how has traxell protected my case and many other cases in the US? if Traxell applied here I would not be going to court next week it would have been thrown at pre trial like my sons law guardiana nd my attorney thought it was going to be. I am not argueing I just want people to see the truth we as parents in most states have few rights when it comes to grandparents "rights" a grandparent should have no rights being an active grandparent is a privillage not a right an unfit parent does not make a fit grandparent!!! And a fit parent should be able to protect their child that is why this ammendment would be wonderful and so many parents can and would beable to protect their children the way they should have always been able to!

sorry again for rambleing
JA'sMama
Well it's a little hard to understand exactly what is going on. First, as a lawyer who does a great deal of constitutional work, let me assure you, Traxel applies in every state. What it does not apply to is a family where both parents are not united.

If you are divorced, then no, it does not apply. A single parent? Nope. Let me also make it clear that constitutional scholars who have studied the "Parents Rights Amendment" feel that this will in NO WAY change the fact that when one parent is absent, grandparents will still have the right to come in and try to gain visitiation etc.....
post #109 of 130
Thread Starter 
maya44,

Mom2-3 and her DH are AP parents, married and together, and they have also been drug into court by the grandparents, right now.

It is not just grandparents either. It has been half-sisters, past employers, etc. Third-parties in general.

I'm sorry, but if there is even a chance this will help one person, I am ALL for it 200%.
post #110 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post
Yes it could mean that!
If Parental Rights were in the Const, third-party visitation statues in the individual states could easily be seen as unconstitutionial and declared so. Therefore, parents could NOT be sued under them, since you cannot be sued under a statute that no longer exists. So parents would be free from this! (When you sue for TPV, you must do so under your specific state statute.)

maya44,

Truly no offense meant, but if you are a lawyer, how could you not know this?

For instance, in WA there is NO grandparents visitation statute, therefore no parents can be sued for it.
In NY, because the way the statue reads, anyone can be sued at anytime.
In my old state, married bio parents could not be sued, but other parents could- due to that state's statute.


Alo, why should Troxel not apply to single, widowed, etc. parents? In that case, the bio dad had died.
post #111 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post
maya44,

Mom2-3 and her DH are AP parents, married and together, and they have also been drug into court by the grandparents, right now.

It is not just grandparents either. It has been half-sisters, past employers, etc. Third-parties in general.

I'm sorry, but if there is even a chance this will help one person, I am ALL for it 200%.
I could take a stranger on a message board to court too, but that doesn't mean I would win. Having a precedent or a statute in place does not prevent people from bringing frivolous lawsuits.
post #112 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog View Post
I could take a stranger on a message board to court too, but that doesn't mean I would win. Having a precedent or a statute in place does not prevent people from bringing frivolous lawsuits.

No, you are incorrect. There is no third-party visitation statute in the U.S. that would allow you to sue for forced visitation with a stranger you were on a message board with.
post #113 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog View Post
Having a precedent or a statute in place does not prevent people from bringing frivolous lawsuits.

Um, yes it could.

For instance, if there was a statute (or constitutional amendment) that said "Fit parents are completely responsible for the upbringing and education of their children, and may not be sued by third-parties." that would mean that third parties could not sue fit parents for tpv. See how it works?

In tpv, you have to sue under your specific state's statute. You can't just wake up one day and sue anyboby (well, unless you live in a state like NY with a really messed-up statute).

That is why parents in WA and FL cannot be sued at all, parents in IL and OR can only be sued under specific circumstances like divorce or whatever, and parents in NY can be sued for anything at anytime.... It has everything to do with your state's statute. But a const. amendment could fix that.
post #114 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post
No, you are incorrect. There is no third-party visitation statute in the U.S. that would allow you to sue for forced visitation with a stranger you were on a message board with.
No, she is correct. People bring frivolous law suits...with absolutely no basis...all the time. They don't WIN those suits, but they still can hassle the other party.

And the Amendment at issue would not prevent a 3d party visitation statute from being on the books. The Amendment only states that a balancing test would be used :
Section 2. The balancing test applicable to other fundamental rights may be used to balance a claim of parental rights provided that the government establishes its interest by proper evidence in each case.


. This could well mean that a Court could determine that the balance tips in favor of the 3rd Party visitation statute and these statutes can be on the books. While some could try to argue that the Amendment means that there the law is unconstitutional this could be a tough sell.
post #115 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post
No, you are incorrect. There is no third-party visitation statute in the U.S. that would allow you to sue for forced visitation with a stranger you were on a message board with.
But in NY if you are a stranger with blood ties you can sue: :: also if you adopt a child the bio grandparent(s) can come in and sue you fro visitation "rights"

Maya44 why should it matter if the parent is single? am I any less of a parent because i did not stay in a verbally abusive relationship??? and again like Love said Mom2-3 is married and has been fighting a good fight for sometime now the point is traxell did nothing for many states because of the way the "law" is written so many many families all over the country are still fighting for their rights married or not! and the way DRL72 is written a judge can rule on how he/she feels that day or just if they feel a GP (good or bad) should see their GC is that fair is it fair I need to show proof that these people are unfit just because I am single??? I have no proof when I was with their son I did not think I needed to tape them being verbally abusive and screaming and throiwing fit over nothing and swearing and being uncontrollable in rage. Is that fair? is that upholding my rights as a fit and loving mother??? It isn't just because I am single. Also these people did not have a relationship with my son I never stopped them from having one and they never tried to have one so really the way the law is written I should not be going to court next friday again for probily the 20th time in two years (and I am guessing on the lower level of amounts of days spent in court) so really the 14th amendment and even the way that the conditions of DRL72 did not protect me.There are many married parents going through this I am not really asking you these questions I am just saying that judges can do as the please in many many states when it comes to GPR and TPV it is not cut and it is a horrid expereance and if this amendment doesn't help me I hope and pray that oneday it will help another family to not endure this. and Like Love said if it helps one family then I would be pleased and feel like oneday something can help my son and I.

JA'sMama
post #116 of 130
Thread Starter 
[QUOTE=maya44;7248933]No, she is correct. People bring frivolous law suits...with absolutely no basis...all the time. They don't WIN those suits, but they still can hassle the other party.

[QUOTE]

Okay, then just for example- go look at *current* IL statue right now (not ones that have been overturned) and explain HOW a married bio-family could be sued for GPV. They COULDN'T be. The LAW says so in black and white.

That is just one example. I am sorry, but I have talked with several very good laywers about this, even ones who did the briefs for TPV for state SCs, and the USSC. I have researched this for years. You are not correct.
Go look at the statutes in different states and see for yourself.

I am not saying people can't bring stupid lawsuits, but not TPV if the state laws do not allow it.
post #117 of 130
Thread Starter 
JA'sMama,

I have to just say again how much I feel for you. My heart truly goes out to you. s Just keep on fighting the good fight. Don't give up!!!

I have been keeping you and mom2-3 in my thoughts and prayers. :heart




Just because some people think this amendment wouldn't help, does NOT mean they are right. MANY people believe this amendment would be an awesome victory for parents.
post #118 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maya44 View Post

And the Amendment at issue would not prevent a 3d party visitation statute from being on the books. The Amendment only states that a balancing test would be used :
Section 2. The balancing test applicable to other fundamental rights may be used to balance a claim of parental rights provided that the government establishes its interest by proper evidence in each case.
I think this would prevent it. And even if it would not, it would definitely help.


Quote:
Originally Posted by maya44 View Post
. This could well mean that a Court could determine that the balance tips in favor of the 3rd Party visitation statute and these statutes can be on the books. While some could try to argue that the Amendment means that there the law is unconstitutional this could be a tough sell.
I do not see it as being a tough sell at all.
post #119 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Love View Post
JA'sMama,

I have to just say again how much I feel for you. My heart truly goes out to you. s Just keep on fighting the good fight. Don't give up!!!

I have been keeping you and mom2-3 in my thoughts and prayers. :heart




Just because some people think this amendment wouldn't help, does NOT mean they are right. MANY people believe this amendment would be an awesome victory for parents.
thank you Love I truely believe if this got passed it would help mom2-3 and myself and all the other out at least from anymore litigation I have hope for next friday I believe that we will win :my fingers are crossed: I have been fighting I just truely do not want any other fit parents to have to go through this it is the worst thing I have ever been through it has also showd me how strong I can be emotionally and spirtually.

thank you again!

JA'sMama
post #120 of 130
Ok - I will begin by fully admitting I am not "highly knowledgable" when it comes to legal and constitutional terms and such. But some of this is really beginning to seem pretty clear to me.

First of all I want to quote the constitution again:
Quote:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
So - if a parental rights ammendment WERE added to the constitution, than NO state could make a law or put anything in THEIR constitution that goes AGAINST that ammendment. It would appear to me that 3rd party visitations would be included in here. They are an infringement on the rights of the parents. Also - I see NO evidence that this ammendment would not include ALL parents wether single or married or gay or straight. It does not designate any specifics in that area. So if a person is the LEGAL parent of a child he or she would have thier rights protected.

Here is alink for other lay-people like me that talks about the Supremacy Clause in the constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

I find it VERY interesting that it mentions in there that even in the 50s people showed great concern about treaties. So much so that an ammendment speaking specifically about treaties was proposed.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Adding Parents Rights to the U.S. Constitution