Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable?

By Publius Huldah

Our Declaration of Independence says:

   “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.– That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it…”  (2nd para) [emphasis mine]

So!  Rights come from God; they are unalienable; the purpose of government is to secure the rights God gave us; and when government takes away our God given rights, it’s time to “throw off such Government”.  

That is our Founding Principle.

Let us now compare our Founding Principle with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  It enumerates 30 some “rights”, among which are:

“Article 8 Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 21 … 3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections …

Article 29 … 2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

3. These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” [all boldface mine]

So! Rights are enumerated; they come from man [constitutions or laws]; governments may do whatever a majority of people want them to do [instead of securing rights God gave us]; and rights may be limited by law & are subject to the will of the United Nations [not God].

Now, let’s look at the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) from the website of parentalrights.org  and compare it with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:  1

“SECTION 1

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2

The parental right to direct education includes the right to choose public, private, religious, or home schools, and the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.

SECTION 3

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 4

This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.  [all boldface mine]

SECTION 5
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.”

So!  Under the PRA, parental rights come from the Constitution – not God.  They are only “fundamental” rights, not unalienable rights.  They are enumerated rights, the extent of which will be decided by federal judges. 2 And these “fundamental” rights may be infringed by law when the federal or State governments have a good reason for infringing them.

And even though parental rights.org uses the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into supporting the PRA; 3 the PRA itself  is the repudiation of our Founding Principles that Rights come from God and are unalienable, and that the sole purpose of civil government is to secure the rights GOD gave us; and adoption of the U.N. theory that rights come from the State, will be determined by the State, and are revocable at the will of the State.

Let’s turn to Michael Farris’ paper posted July 9, 2013 in Freedom Outpost.  His paper followed my initial paper where I addressed, Section by Section, the PRA of which Farris is principal author.  He is also Executive Director of parental rights.org

1. Mr. Farris’ rationale for the PRA: Scalia’s Dissent in Troxel v. Granville (2000)

Farris cites Scalia’s dissent to support his own perverse theory that unless a right is enumerated in the federal Constitution, judges can’t enforce it, and the right can’t be protected.

But Farris ignores the majority’s holding in Troxel, and misstates the gist of Scalia’s dissent.  I’ll show you.

This case originated in the State of Washington, and involved a State Statute (§26.10.160(3)) addressing visitation rights by persons who were not parents.  Two grandparents filed an action under this State Statute wanting increased visitation of their grandchildren.  The mother (Granville) was willing to permit some visitation, but not as much as the grandparents wanted.

This State family law case got to the U.S. supreme Court on the ground that the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment was at stake.

And what did the supreme Court say in Troxel v. Granville ?

“…In light of this extensive precedent, it cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children…

“…We therefore hold that the application of §26.10.160(3) to Granville and her family violated her due process right to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her daughters.”  [all boldface mine]

Do you see?  The supreme Court has already “discovered”, in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, a parental right to make decisions about the care, custody, and control of children.

Now! In order to understand Scalia’s dissent, one must first learn:

  • That the powers of the federal courts are enumerated and strictly defined; and
  • The original intent of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, and how the supreme Court perverted it.

These are explained in detail here: Judicial Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment: Abortion, Sexual Orientation, & Gay Marriage.   In a nutshell, the linked paper shows that federal courts may lawfully hear only cases falling within the categories enumerated at Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution.  One of these categories is cases:

“…arising under this Constitution…”

In Federalist Paper No. 80 (2nd para), Alexander Hamilton says that before a case can properly be said to “arise under the Constitution”, it must:

“…concern the execution of the provisions expressly contained in the articles of Union…” [emphasis added]

So! Does our federal Constitution “expressly contain” provisions about abortion?  Homosexual sex?  Homosexual marriage?  Parental rights?  No, it does not.

Since these matters are not delegated to the federal government, they are reserved to the States and The People (10th Amendment). The federal government has no lawful authority over these issues.

Well, then, how did the supreme Court overturn State Statutes criminalizing abortion and   homosexual sex, and State Statutes addressing parental rights?

They used the “due process” clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment to usurp power over these issues.  Section 1 says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” [boldface mine]

Professor Raoul Berger proves in his book, Government by Judiciary: The Transformation of the Fourteenth Amendment, that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend citizenship to freed slaves and protect them from southern Black Codes which denied them basic rights of citizenship.

Professor Berger also shows (Ch. 11) that “due process” is a term with a “precise technical import” going back to the Magna Charta.  It means that a person’s life, liberty or property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers pursuant to a fair trial!

Professor Berger stresses that “due process of law” refers only to trials - to judicial proceedings in courts of justice.  It does not involve judicial power to override State Statutes!

Justice Scalia understands this.

And now, you can understand Scalia’s dissent.  What he actually says is:

  • Parental rights are “unalienable” and come from God (Declaration of Independence). They are among the retained rights of the people (9th Amendment).   [Parental rights don’t come from the 14th Amendment!]
  • The Declaration of Independence does not delegate powers to federal courts.  It is the federal Constitution which delegates powers to federal courts.
  • It is for State Legislators and candidates for that office to argue that the State has no power to interfere with parents’ God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. [The People need to elect State Legislators who understand that the State may not properly infringe God given parental rights.]
  • The federal Constitution does not authorize judges to come up with their own lists of what “rights” people have 4 and use their lists to overturn State statutes.  [That is what the supreme Court did when they fabricated “liberty rights” to abortion and homosexual sex, and overturned State Statutes criminalizing these acts.]
  • The federal Constitution does not mention “parental rights” – such cases do not “arise under the Constitution”.   So federal courts have no “judicial power” over such cases.

In his closing, Scalia warns against turning family law over to the federal government:

“…If we embrace this unenumerated right … we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people.  [emphasis mine]

Do you see?  “Parental rights” is a state matter; and parents need to replace bad State legislators.

But the PRA delegates power over “parental rights” to the federal government and makes it an enumerated power. 

So!  When Farris says:

“4. The Parental Rights Amendment does not give the Judiciary legislative power but constrains the judiciary’s exercise of its existing power.”

His words are false.  The PRA transforms what is now a usurped power over parental rights seized by the supreme Court by perverting Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment [the majority opinion in Troxel illustrates this],  to an enumerated power of the federal government.

2. The PRA expressly delegates to the federal and State governments power to infringe God-given parental rights!

Mr. Farris asserts that the PRA gives no power to Congress over children because he – the principal author of the PRA – purposefully left out the language which appears in other amendments that “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.

So!  What did Farris put in his PRA?  Look at his SECTION 3:

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe these rights without demonstrating that its governmental interestas applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.” [emphasis mine]

The wording assumes the federal and State governments will be making laws “infringing” parental rights!  And because of the PRA, such laws will be constitutional! 5

The only issue will be whether such acts of Congress [the Legislative Branch of the federal government] “serve the government’s interest”.  And who will decide?  The federal courts [the Judicial Branch of the federal government] will decide.

The same goes for State Statutes and State courts.

Furthermore, Acts of Congress or State Statutes need only recite the boilerplate language that the law “serves the government’s interest, etc.”, and it will go to the courts clothed with a presumption of correctness.

3. The PRA is not “just like” the Second Amendment

Mr. Farris says the PRA is

“… just like the Second Amendment in this regard. The Second Amendment gives no level of government the power to regulate guns. (Any such power comes from some other provision of the Constitution [state or federal]). And the Second Amendment is a limitation on the exercise of such powers.”

Rubbish!

WE THE PEOPLE did not delegate to the federal government power to restrict our arms.

The 2nd Amendment shows that WE THE PEOPLE really meant it when we declined to give the federal government enumerated power to restrict our arms.

So!  As shown here, all federal laws and rules of the BATF pertaining to background checks, dealer licensing, banning sawed off shotguns, etc., are unconstitutional as outside the scope of the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government, and as in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

The PRA is not “just like” the 2nd Amendment because the PRA is an express delegation of power over children and parental rights to the federal and State governments!

4. Pen Names

Publius is the pen name used by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay when, during 1787 and 1788, they wrote The Federalist Papers to explain the proposed Constitution and induce The People to ratify it.

Huldah is the prophet at 2 Kings 22.  The Book of the Law had been lost for a long time.  When it was found, it was taken to Huldah who gave guidance about it to the king and his priests.

Do you see?  And it’s about Our Country – not my personal glory, fame, and fundraising.

My qualifications?  My work speaks for itself.

5. Learn the Constitution and understand the PRA?  Or put your trust in Farris?

My previous paper is about the PRA and our Constitution.  It isn’t about Mr. Farris.

But Farris’ response is about persons:  429 of his 2,044 words are devoted to his illustrious self; 170 words are spent to disparage Publius Huldah.

I teach the original intent of our Constitution so that our People can become what Alexander Hamilton expected them to be:

“… a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority…”  Federalist Paper No. 16 (next to last para)

To that end, I have published some 50 papers proving that original intent, using The Federalist Papers as the best evidence of that original intent.

We must all do our civic duty and learn our Founding Principles and Constitution so that we can learn to think for ourselves and help restore our Constitutional Republic.

But Farris says you should believe in … him.  He says: 

“6. Who are you going to believe—a trusted advocate for parental rights or an anonymous blogger?”

He doesn’t ask you to learn and think – he asks you to believe … in him.

6. An Alternative Organization: National Home Education Legal Defense (NHELD)

NHELD has been warning for years about the Parental Rights Amendment.  NHELD

“…does not believe in blindly following the word of anyone. NHELD … does not believe in just directing families to act in unison on the basis of an opinion that NHELD … has formed on its own. NHELD … believes in an informed, empowered citizenry, who is able to fight for freedom effectively…”

NHELD advises:

“…individuals not to take the word of anyone else about what … legislation says, but to read the text for themselves …”

7. How do Governments “secure” our God given Rights?

Our rights must be “secured” from people & civil governments who seek to take them away.

For an illustration of how the enumerated powers delegated to the federal government enable it to “secure” our God given rights to life, liberty & property, see James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers, under the subheading, Our Founding Principles in a Nutshell. The federal government isn’t to secure these rights in all ways – just in those ways appropriate to the national government of a Federation of Sovereign States.

The powers reserved by The States and The People enable the States to secure these rights in the ways appropriate to States.  States secure our right to life by prosecuting murderers, drunk drivers, quarantining people with infectious deadly diseases, etc.  States secure our property rights by prosecuting robbers; by providing courts for recovery for fraud, breach of contract; etc.

Our federal Constitution secures our God given rights by strictly limiting the powers of Congress, the powers of the President, and the powers of the federal courts.

Civil governments are controlled by limiting their powers.

To delegate to the federal government express power to infringe “parental rights” under the pretext of “protecting” such rights is absurd! But that is Farris’ argument. 

Parents!  Justice Scalia gives excellent advice: elect to your State Legislature people who understand that your responsibilities to your children are determined by God alone.

We must stop looking for the magic pill, roll up our sleeves, man up, and fix our own States.

Conclusion

The PRA is a radical transformation of our conception of Rights from being unalienable gifts of God to the UN Model where “rights” are granted by government and revocable at the will of government.  This is being sold to you as a means of “protecting” your parental rights!  But it transfers power over children to the federal and State governments.  You are being told to trust the “experts” and “believe” what they tell you.  But if the PRA is ratified, the federal and State governments will have constitutional authority to infringe your “parental rights”.   And you will have no recourse.

POSTSCRIPT Added August 22, 2013:  You need to understand that the poisonous & deceptive “parental rights amendment” is what would give the federal government and the state governments CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to implement the hellish plan described in the attached link.  Once they have constitutional authority you will have no recourse but to take up arms.

http://thecommonsenseshow.com/2013/08/17/the-mother-of-all-conspiracies-aimed-at-our-children/#comment-10633

Endnotes:

1Craigers61 pointed out that Section 3 of the PRA is a paraphrase of [Article 29] of the UN [Declaration] in which:

“… all of the rights “given” by the UN earlier in the document can be taken back if any right goes against the UN’s “mission.” It’s a big finger on the chess piece in which the Political power can take back the right granted at any time they deem…

…Also, do you see the other problem here? The STATE grants the right to the parents! … In classical liberalism, the philosophy that founded the USA, all rights are INALEIANBLE! They reside in the human being themselves! They cannot be given, they cannot be taken and they cannot be circumscribed by the STATE…”

2 Bob in Florida asks Farris:

“But, what you say we must do – pass the Parental Rights Amendment – to defeat the Scalia argument that there is no legal text to cite to allow parents to have rights to direct their children’s education, medical care, etc., requires that we do exactly what the writers of the Constitution did not want to do – enumerate each and every right we have.

Their reason was that this would require that we enumerate each and every right and to leave one out would imply we don’t have that right. Their chosen approach was to only define the powers given to the government and all others were reserved to the States or the People.  [emphasis mine]

Are you not advocating we do exactly what they didn’t want to do – enumerate each and every right?”

3 Congress may lawfully ratify only treaties which address enumerated powers. Since “parental rights” & “children” are not enumerated powers, any ratified treaty addressing such would be a proper object of nullification.  But if the PRA is ratified, then these will be enumerated powers, and the Senate will have lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

4 It is GOD’s prerogative to decide what Rights we have.  Not mans’.

5 Un-anonymous blogger Doug Newman pointed out four years ago that:

“…The PRA actually puts a constitutional blessing on federal intrusion into parenting…” 

Add to DeliciousAdd to DiggAdd to FaceBookAdd to Google BookmarkAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Twitter

July 28, 2013; postscript added August 22, 2013

July 28, 2013 - Posted by | 14th Amendment, Amendments: Parental Rights Amendment, Declaration of Independence, Michael Farris, Parental Rights Amendment, parentalrights.org, Troxel v. Granville, UN Declaration of Rights | , , , , , , ,

29 Comments »

  1. A widely recognized attorney has questioned the idea that Art V calls for a constitutional convention, as was called in Philadelphia, to be called. Rather, that it allows as an alternative to their proposing amendments, the legislatures of 2/3’s of the states to apply, (to congress?) for a convention to propose amendments applicable only to the present constitution, which shall be valid “as part of this constitution” when ratified by convention in 3/4 of the states involved. if so, how does a con-con to revise or otherwise rewrite the constitution come about? NOT that I suggest one !

    Comment by Peter Bennett | August 5, 2013 | Reply

    • Very easily. Congress “calls” the Convention. So Congress may appoint the delegates. Once the Convention starts, there is nothing to stop the delegates from doing whatever they want. NOTHING. The wording of Article V won’t stop them. Heck, everyone in the federal government has been ignoring the Constitution for 100 years!

      So the delegates may come up with an entirely new Constitution! And they will. THIS IS WHAT THE PROGRESSIVES ALL WANT. And this new Constitution may have its own new procedures for ratification. The new Constitution might provide that it is ratified by a majority vote in both houses of Congress.

      Some of the people – even some “widely recognized attorneys” who claim to be on our side, are not. They are purposefully deceiving us. Sometimes, we don’t know whether people are stupid or lying. But some of the “widely recognized attorneys” are not so stupid that they do not fully understand what they are doing. They are lying.

      I haven’t written a paper on this b/c others have already done fine work which covers it all: The National Eagle Forum has a page devoted to the dangers of a con con including warnings from James Madison against ever having another con con. The late Harry Lamb of Tennessee wrote a brilliant short paper on this. I wrote just a short commentary on my “Daily Commentary” Page: Go there and scroll down to: WARNING AGAINST A CON-CON (a/k/a “Art. V Convention”). There is a link to Lamb’s paper. Here is the Eagle Forum Con Con page: http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/concon/

      Let me know if you have any questions. This is a most important issue.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 5, 2013 | Reply

  2. BRAVO!! PH very well done! Thank GOD for you and all the wisdom He has given you.Please, keep up with the fight!

    Comment by Jane Lee | August 4, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you! I won’t stop writing.

      Feel free to use these papers to keep your State Legislators from approving the PRA; and to keep your State’s delegation to Congress from signing onto Farris’ PRA. Some warrior citizens have stopped their State legislatures from approving it! And please warn everyone you can.

      Re the “conservative” politicians such as Michelle Bachmann and Jim DeMint who have signed onto this PRA:

      1) Did they read it? Or are they just going by the name? Did they sponsor it b/c they figured they’d get points with the TP people?

      2) Or, do they know what it does, but figure the TP people are too stupid to understand it? Do they think they can get points with the TP people, even while they hold the door wide open for the progressives?

      We do know, from the comments of Farris’ “true believers” at Freedom Outpost, that there are some very gullible people in our Country. They are the Dufflepuds in C.S. Lewis’ “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader”. Vain and stupid.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | August 4, 2013 | Reply

  3. […] Lawyer and Constitutional expert Publius Huldah asks: “Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable?” […]

    Pingback by Publius Huldah: Parental Rights - God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable? | USA NEWS FIRST | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  4. Reblogged this on Jesus' Compassion 4 America! (& the world!) and commented:
    This site of Publius-Hulda’s (interesting explanation for her name) has been used by God greatly in my life!! I didn’t realize, even after learning about our wonderful Constitution and much more about our Founding Fathers in the last few years, I still had a mentality of “Are we allowed…?” Yes, it is right to have a country that has the ‘Rule of Law’ and to think in terms of obeying the laws—very important, as I have learned. But the subtle mentality of the Law being our ‘Ruler’, as though it is the ‘Giver of our Rights’ and teaches us Right from Wrong, rather than God and the Bible, is of course, wrong! That subtle mentality has been REMOVED, even more so, this last year by discovering Publius Hulda’s teachings. A BIG HELP!! And very refreshing!!
    We have much to do to return to the right purpose of government and laws that respect that man’s rights are God-given and therefore inalienable.
    But, as Jesus said “Be of good cheer!” speaking about tribulations we would have in this world, but through Him (Jesus), we have all authority In the Name of Jesus over the real enemy, Satan—the master of deceit and author of tyranny itself! (People don’t make up false religions!! eg. ‘Islam’ Obey (supposed God) ‘Allah!’ as the Koran commands! Jihad is in the Muslims’ Bible, the Koran. And immitate Allah’s Prophet, Muhammad, following the book (Hadith?) about Muhammed’s life; as commanded in the Koran. Read about the one they are to imitate—Utter EVIL!! http://www.JihadWatch.org Robert Spencer explains the Koran wonderfuly!) Also, the book ‘Marx and Satan’ by Richard Wurmbrand (he & his wife founded of Voice of the Martyrs) is another big clue about the true cause of tyranny, showing Karl Marx’s involvement in Satanism.
    And, of course, the Bible makes it clear that the unseen evil forces of demons (Satan is a demon) are the enemy of God, man, and ALL GOOD! (Acts 26:18 ; Ephesians 6:10-18)
    I believe the situation in America is HOPELESS!! Yes, it good to see that and not hesitate to say it.
    At least for us who know the Bible is true and that GOD IS FOR US!!
    It’s similar to the Army of the Philistines who, along their Giant Goliath, thought they could take out Israel. EXCEPT for God, they could!! All the Army of Israel was scared! And, of course, their Commander In Chief, King Saul!
    But the shepherd boy David, who had a close relationship with God (Psalm 23) TRUSTED GOD to provide him with the ability to bring down the giant! He used his slingshot, but young David made it very clear IT WAS GOD who would defeat the giant!! (1 Samuel 17:45) David believed God would bring him success SOMEHOW; naturally it being IMPOSSIBLE!! And, of course, God did! The Giant was killed and the intimidating Philistine Army fled, instead of ENSLAVING the nation of Israel, as they had been threatened.
    As we take God at His Word, like David; and also as our Founding Fathers did, the Giant of Tyranny CAN be brought down in America!! And, BY GOD, we CAN get back on the right, God-given, Foundation of the Bible ‘from which our founding fathers received the wisdom’ to be able to draw up our very God-wise Founding Documents and Laws. In studying our founding Fathers I was very surprised to see how they were Christians, people who believed the Bible as well as heard from God in prayer. I know from giving my life to Jesus (born-again) at 27 and learning the Bible is true, the TREMENDOUS difference it made in my life!! And we Christians know it will make that same Life-giving, wonderful difference in anyone’s life!
    As Christians, it shouldn’t surprise us to learn that God gave men who believed in Him and heard from Him in prayer, before and during the founding of our country, the ‘wisdom from above’ regarding this nation; wisdom which the Bible says God is glad to give generously to those who ask. (James 1:5)
    Many are asking for that wisdom regarding America and receiving it! I believe Publius-Huldah is a good example; and, praise the Lord, there are many who are asking and hearing from God!! But we need to do as the scripture about ‘God answering’ in James 1:5 says to do: “do not doubt”. David was able to TRUST he was doing the right thing in doing what was ‘impossible for man’ to achieve because ‘he believed he could hear from God’ and receive the wisdom from above!! By not doubting (ie., faith), he was ABLE to bring down the tyranny threatening Giant Goliath, single handed, ‘BY GOD’!!
    Have the JOY of faith, my brethren, KNOWING “God is for us!’ By being Bible believing Christians, we are on God’s side; and He is GLAD to support us with His Almighty Power!!
    “If God is for us, who can succeed against us?” (Romans 8:31)
    With Jesus’ Compassion 4 America! (& the world!!),
    Love, Soteria (& Jesus!!)

    Comment by jesusvictorious | July 29, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, Sister. It is true that I continually ask God for Wisdom. And I ask God to give me the words I need to explain things, and to show me how to explain things.

      Re the Rule of Law: It prevails when the civil authorities obey the law which is higher than themselves. The rule of man prevails when the civil authorities do whatever they want to do.

      http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/the-biblical-foundation-of-our-constitution/

      It is the statists/progressives who told us that the “rule of law” means that WE obey THEM. This lie is so well implanted that this is what most believe the “rule of law” is. Even Rush Limbaugh has said things showing that this is what he believes.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  5. Is this article different from the one on freedomoutpost.com that was posted on July 20th?

    Thanks, Mary

    Comment by Tom and Mary Thompson | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • It’s the same.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  6. Hi Publius, It’s “Lynette Indiana” from facebook. We have messaged about the con-con push in Indiana and Eagle forum.

    I don’t know if you are aware but Parental Rights.org use to advocate Art. V as a way to change the Constitution for this amendment. Not sure when they stopped promoting that but it was there in ’08. Maybe as late as 2010.

    Comment by lynettesemail@comcast.net | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • I remember you, Lynette!

      A con con is the ultimate goal of the progressives. Progressives are big government marxists, and the people at parentalrights.org show the signs of being progressives. I suspect they pose as “Christians” in order to deceive the gullible (of which, sadly, there is a great number). I also suspect Michael Farris, Wm Wagner, et al, of deliberate deception: I can not see how a federal litigation attorney could fail to see that the PRA turns control over children to the federal and state governments.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  7. I am not a lawyer or word smith but am a retired military vet / but truly value your wisdom / hopefully you are training many other’s in the truth of what the constitution truly means , because 99.9% of the people in this country do not understand what it means and those that know what it means but believe like Obama , want to destroy and then gut this god inspired plan for liberty!!!

    Comment by james fontanna | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, James! I have no idea how many people I reach. Not enough.
      And yes, our deadly enemies are now running things. The question is, “Will the American People man up and say “NO MORE!”?

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  8. This could not be clearer. Thanks for the detail and exhaustive explanation.
    Ed

    Comment by egbegb | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, Ed! That clarity took over a week of re-writing to uncover.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  9. Again I say, “Thank God for you.” Your gift to take complicated legal maneuvers, manipulative language and deceitful mis-interpretations and make them intelligible for the layman citizen is an indescribable blessing. I understand quite well after one reading and with a review of this paper and the previous one I’ll be confident to debate this issue with any liberal constitution wrecker who dares challenge me on parental rights! Years ago I was challenged by a Jr High School official on my right to keep my daughter out of school to attend a religious function. I insisted they had no right to usurp my “God given parental authority. Back then they backed down. Now if we pass this UN sponsored law we’ll give away that God given right. God forbid! Not on my watch!

    Comment by George Gianopulos | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you, G!
      I have had a lot of practical experience dealing with deceitful and manipulative lawyers. What always amazes me is how easily their lies are exposed. Lawyers misrepresent all the time what judicial opinions say. So when Farris cited Troxel v. Granville as authority for his PRA, first thing I did was to read the opinion and then Scalia’s dissent, and see what they really said.

      I understand why The People hate lawyers.

      And good for you for fighting for your daughter!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  10. Sent from my iPad

    There are none so blind or deaf as those who will neither look nor listen!

    Comment by paleophlatus | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • They believe in liars.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  11. I like how you point out the difference between unalienable and fundamental rights. This is really helpful. People really do need to know the difference. It’s good to see just how much of the UN treaty is actually being echoed in the language of the PRA. That should be a warning sign to all.

    Comment by washbear | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • Yes! The term, “fundamental right” is itself a red flag. Federal litigation attorneys know exactly what it means: that federal judges will decide when that right can be infringed.

      But lay people who don’t understand that our Founding Principle is that Rights come from GOD and are unalienable, and that the purpose of civil government is to secure these God-given rights, think that it is just wonderful to have a “fundamental” right.

      People opposing the PRA could make good use of the fact that the PRA echos the language and principles of the UN Treaty. I suspect most of Farris’ followers have no idea how he is selling them down the river. I expect you can show them.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  12. As always….excellent and spot on….

    Comment by contructiveconservative | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • Thanks!

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  13. Thank you Publius Huldah for standing up and clearly stating the God-given nature or parental rights. I agree with your straightforward articulation of this unalienable right.

    Comment by Eleazer Bryan | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you for your kind words. Help warn The People and keep a watch on your State legislature. B/c the PRA will rear its very ugly head there if it hasn’t already.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  14. Superb analysis! You are a gift to all who seek clarity of our Constitution and the exposing of those who would deny it’s role in American life and the pursuit of liberty.

    Comment by Joseph Robinson | July 28, 2013 | Reply

    • Thank you! Please keep a watch for this in your State Legislature. The PRA will come there if it hasn’t already. The enemy is trying to get the States to pass this as a State law.
      Some people have been able to fight it off! But it will keep coming back.

      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 29, 2013 | Reply

  15. […] Parental Rights: God-given and Unalienable?  Or Government-granted and Revocable? […]

    Pingback by Reblogged: Parental Rights | The Conservative Moss Point | July 28, 2013 | Reply

  16. THANK YOU FOR THE EMAIL!

    ________________________________

    Comment by TY MIMBS | July 28, 2013 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 804 other followers

%d bloggers like this: