Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Parental Rights Amendment: Selling You and Your Kids Out to Big Government

By Publius Huldah

If politicians introduced a bill mandating the slaughter of all human babies under the age of two years; but called it, “The Little Babies Protection Act”, establishment conservatives and unthinking people all over the Country would be clamoring for its passage.

We have become a shallow and easily deceived people. If it sounds good on the surface, we are all for it. We assume the   proposal will live up to its name. 1 We don’t trouble ourselves to actually read proposals and analyze them before we clamor for passage.

The name, “parental rights amendment” (PRA), sounds so good!  But it actually strips parents of their God-delegated authority over their children, and transfers that authority to the federal government.

In order to understand this, you must first learn about “enumerated powers”.

 Enumerated Powers

When WE THE PEOPLE ordained and established the Constitution for the United States, We listed, itemized – enumerated – every power WE delegated to each branch of the federal government over the Country at Large.  All other powers were retained by The States or The People.

James Madison, Father of our Constitution, says in Federalist No. 45 (3rd para from end):

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which … concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” [boldface mine]

Do you see? We delegated only “few and defined” powers to the federal government over the Country at Large. These are the “enumerated powers” actually listed in the Constitution. 2

These enumerated powers over the Country at Large concern:

  • Military defense, international commerce & relations;
  • Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;
  • Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
  • With some Amendments, protect certain civil rights and voting rights.

It is only with respect to the “enumerated powers” that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at Large. All other powers are “reserved to the several States” and The People. 3

So!  Where in the Constitution did WE THE PEOPLE delegate to the federal government power over children and their care and upbringing?  We didn’t.  Accordingly, it has no lawful authority over these objects.

Thus, any federal law, treaty 4, executive order, agency rule, or court opinion which pretends to exercise such power over children is unconstitutional as outside the scope of enumerated powers delegated to the federal government for the Country at Large. 5

See?  This is all very simple.

So then, how does the federal government go about obtaining lawful authority over the care and upbringing of children? By means of lies, trickery and deceit:

The so-called “Parental Rights” Amendment

 Let us now read it. Here it is from the website of the deceptively named,


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


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.


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.


This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.

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.”

Look again at Section 3!

We will go through each section.  But first, two general observations:

Parents have Responsibilities to their children, not “rights” over them.

The Creator God who – as recognized by the Signers of our Declaration of Independence – endowed us with unalienable Rights; also assigned to parents specific responsibilities to their children. 7 Among these are:

  • Provision for children: 2 Corinthians 12:14; Proverbs 13:22; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.
  • Educaton and moral instruction of children:  Proverbs 1:8-9, 6:20-21, 13:1, 22:6 & 23:19-22; Genesis 18:19; Deuteronomy 4:9-10 & 6:1-7; Ephesians 6:1-4; 2 Timothy 1:5  & 3:15-17.
  • Discipline of children: Proverbs 13: 24, 15:5, 19:18, 22:15, 23:12-14, 29:15-17; Hebrews 12:5-11; Colossians 3:21.

Parents are supposed to provide for, care for, teach, protect, and educate their children.  NOT civil government!

The Judicial Power of the Federal Courts

Article III, Sec. 2, cl. 1, U.S. Constitution, enumerates the powers of the federal courts:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…”

“Judicial Power” refers to the power of courts to hear and decide cases.

Amendments are part of the Constitution.  Thus, federal courts have power to decide issues addressed by Amendments.

The PRA would transform “families” and “children” from matters over which the federal government now has no lawful authority to matters under the total control of the federal government.

The PRA is a delegation of lawmaking power over families and children to the federal government. Congress may make whatever laws it pleases pertaining to YOUR children; the Executive Branch may issue whatever rules or orders it pleases pertaining to YOUR children – and under Section 3 of the PRA, federal judges will decide whether these laws, orders & rules serve the government’s interest.  If so, you lose.

Lawsuits involving these matters would become cases “arising under this Constitution”, or “Laws of the United States”, or “Treaties”, which would ultimately be decided by five (5) judges on the supreme Court.  The authority of millions and millions of American parents would be transferred to five (5) judges on the supreme Court.

That Court has a long history of perverting every word of our Constitution it touches. 8 It is suicidal to transfer Family Authority to that Court.

Let us now look at each section of the PRA:

Section 1: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children is a fundamental right.”

Just as the supreme Court sees the First Amendment as the source of our right to free speech, and they decide what speech is protected by that Amendment and what speech is not, 8 so it will see the PRA as the source of “parental rights”, and they will decide what “rights” parents have and what “rights” they do not have.

Consider also:  Do the words “upbringing” or “care” in Section 1 include religious training, discipline, diet, medical treatment, and whether the child may wield a hoe in the family garden?  What does it mean that these are not listed?  That parents have no “rights” regarding these issues? The supreme Court will decide what it means.

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.”

What is not included in the parental right to direct education? What is a “reasonable” choice?  Who decides what is not included and what choices are “reasonable”?  Federal judges decide.

“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.”

Do you understand this Section?  Whatever “parental rights” you think you have will be infringed by the federal government or the State governments if they have a good reason for it.  Federal judges will decide whether the federal or State governments have a good reason to infringe your “parental rights”.

Section 4: This article shall not be construed to apply to a parental action or decision that would end life.”

What?  Does this mean that parents retained the “right” to make these decisions?  Or does it mean that the PRA does not “protect” that right, hence parents no longer have it?

I suggest to you that federal courts will construe this section to mean that parents will no longer be permitted to make decisions about terminating or continuing medical care for their seriously ill, injured, or “defective” (Downs’ syndrome, birth defects, etc.) children.

Do not forget:  We elected as President a man who supports the murder of little babies who survive abortions.  9 Is this man going to appoint federal judges who disagree with the killing of children?

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.”

The PRA does not stop the President and Senate from ratifying the UN Declaration on The Rights of the Child.

NO RIGHTS ARE GUARANTEED BY THE PRA! You cannot name one “parental right” which cannot be voided if the federal or state government shows federal judges that the government has an interest in voiding the right.

Further, since the PRA makes federal control of children an enumerated power, it is the PRA itself which would give the U.S. Senate constitutional authority to ratify the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child!

The PRA is monstrously deceitful.

Here is the PRA which has been introduced in the current Session of Congress:  H.J. Res. 50

Here is a list of House sponsors of the PRA in this Session of Congress. Form delegations and go see your Representatives.  Instruct them!  I bet they never read it before they endorsed it.

Put Not Your Trust in Princes

People!  Your blind trust in charlatans and politicians is destroying us.  They pretend to be what they are not in order to deceive you.  Stop flaunting your blind trust as a mark of virtue.  Blind trust in humans is irresponsible – it is not a virtue.  PH


1 E.g., we assume the “Balanced Budget” Amendment is about curtailing federal spending.  Since we don’t look behind the name, we don’t know that the BBA is really about eliminating the enumerated powers limitation on spending & legalizing what is now unconstitutional spending.

2 See:  Congress’ Enumerated Powers, the President’s Enumerated Powers, & the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Courts.

3 Read the Tenth Amendment!

4 parental has been using the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child to terrorize parents into believing that only the PRA can save them from the UN Declaration.

You must learn about the treaty making powers of the United States.  The President and Senate may not lawfully circumvent the Constitution by international treaties – they may not do by treaty what they are forbidden to do by the Constitution.  Since the Constitution delegates NO powers over children to the federal government, they may not lawfully circumvent the Constitution by ratifying the UN Declaration.  These 2 papers explain the treaty-making power.

It is the PRA which would give the federal government lawful authority to ratify the UN Declaration!  Because issues relating to “children” would become an enumerated power delegated to the federal government by the PRA itself!   So the PRA is a monstrous deception.

5 Accordingly, they are proper objects of nullification.

6 Parental periodically changes the text of their proposed PRA.  The version set forth herein was copied from their website during June 2013.

7 To my friends in the Ayn Rand camp:  These are historical facts – the Bible says what it says and our Framers believed it.  Ayn Rand had no argument with the Natural Law Principle that parents have the responsibility of raising their own children.

8 The supreme Court looked at the word, “liberty” in Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment and said it means “privacy”; and “privacy” means “women may kill their unborn babies”!  A short time later, they looked at the same word and decided that it means, “homosexual sex is a liberty right”!  Do you see?  That Court treats the 14th Amendment as Marquis de Sade’s play dough.

And look at how that Court has butchered the First Amendment:  That Amendment says, in part:

“Congress shall make no law …abridging the freedom of speech…”

Since speech control is not one of the enumerated powers delegated to Congress over the Country at Large; and since all legislative Powers granted by our Constitution are vested in Congress (Art. I, Sec. 1); neither the Executive nor Judicial Branches have power over “speech” for the Country at Large.

Regulation of speech is reserved to the States and the People (10th Amendment). The States exercised this retained power by means of State laws against defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, publicity given to private life, etc., etc.

Yet the supreme Court treats the First Amendment as the source of our right to free speech, and they decide what speech is “protected” by the First Amendment and what speech is “not protected” by the First Amendment.  If the former, you may say it; if the latter, you may not say it.  The supreme Court has usurped power to censor our speech!

So!  In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the Westboro Baptists picketed, with vile and defamatory signs, the funeral of an American Soldier who was killed in action. The bereaved Father filed a lawsuit under various State Laws such as defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc.

The Jury found for the Father and held Westboro liable for $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages.

But the supreme Court overturned the Jury Verdict and said that the Westboro Baptists had a “right” protected by the First Amendment to spew their malice at this young soldier’s funeral, and it mowed down the State laws which made such defamatory speech actionable.

This is how the supreme Court construes an Amendment which merely prohibits CONGRESS from making laws restricting speech! 

The federal government has no lawful authority over speech in the Country at Large!  Yet those lawless judges on the supreme Court have also seized power to forbid students from leading Christian prayers in the public schools!

9 Jill Stanek is an RN who worked in the Labor & Delivery Department in an Illinois hospital where aborted babies born alive were left to die.  Read her article where she proves that our President opposed Illinois’ Born Alive Infant Protection Act.  Obama wanted the babies to die.  How can you put YOUR children in the hands of judges this man nominates? PH

UPDATE!  Michael Farris, Esq., the executive director of, who has said that he is the primary author of the PRA, has posted a response to my paper here:

By all means, go read it – and the comments!

July 11, 2013

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

July 11, 2013 - Posted by | Amendments: Parental Rights Amendment, Parental Rights Amendment, |


  1. […] Farris’ proposed amendment delegates power over children to the federal and State governments, goHERE  and, for the follow up paper, […]


    Pingback by Straight Talk About An Article V Convention | From the Trenches World Report | December 1, 2014 | Reply

  2. […] Farris’ proposed amendment delegates power over children to the federal and State governments, go HERE  and, for the follow up paper, […]


    Pingback by Straight Talk About An Article V Convention « Publius-Huldah's Blog | November 9, 2014 | Reply

  3. […] proposed amendment delegates power over children to the federal and State governments, go HERE and […]


    Pingback by Straight Talk about an Article V Convention | Grumpy Opinions | October 7, 2014 | Reply

  4. Tomorrow, (1-24-2014) God willing, I will be attending the first ‘official’ Senate Rules Committee hearing of the General Assembly of the State of Georgia for an Article V COS Resolution.

    I hope to amend the resolution in the first ‘resolve’ clause to read (underlined) as follows:

    “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF GEORGIA, that the General Assembly of the State of Georgia hereby applies to Congress, under the provisions of Article V of the Constitution of the United States, for the calling of a convention of the states, limited to proposing amendments to the United States Constitution that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress, require proof of US citizenship to vote in all federal elections, and confirm the definition of an Article II “natural born citizen..”

    With 27 “conservative” state legislatures, it is hard for me to see how any convention can run too far away from our founding principles. With only 17 ‘liberal’ legislatures, even if you include the 6 non-partisan legislatures, which is not very likely, conservative legislatures will still have the majority vote, with these numbers only improving after 2014 . The time to act is NOW when the political strength of the baby-boomer generation will be at the apex of its political strength at 36%. We may not get another chance.

    ex animo


    Comment by davidfarrar | January 23, 2014 | Reply

    • David, I really thought you had better sense than to support an Article V convention. That is the worst idea there ever was.

      You have no idea what you are asking for.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | January 23, 2014 | Reply

      • So what is your greatest concern? Are you concerned the convention will be a run away convention, or that the amendments themselves will cause more harm than good? With the numbers, it’s hard to see how the convention will stray too far from our conservative values with conservatives in the voting majority. As to the amendment themselves…we must trust in ourselves.

        ex animo


        Comment by davidfarrar | January 23, 2014 | Reply

        • David, I wish you would read the two latest papers on my website – read all the hyperlinks and note especially James Madison’s letter to Turberville to which I link in my paper on Mark Levin.

          There is no such thing as a “convention of states” – and even if there were, would the powers in YOUR State appoint honorable constitutionalists as delegates?

          Every person we elect to federal, state, and county office takes an Oath to obey the Constitution. For 100 years, they have been violating their Oaths. Even if proposed amendments to the Constitution actually restricted the powers of the federal government – why would they all start honoring their Oaths now?

          But there is one thing which can be done at a “convention” which can not be done in any other way: They can slip in a new Constitution with its own new method of ratification, and there won’t be a thing you can do to stop it. For example, The Constitution for the Newstates of America provides for ratification by the President’s calling a “referendum”. The States don’t have the opportunity to ratify or reject it. The States are dissolved under that proposed Constitution. Here is it – note Article XII, Sec. 1

          Former US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger wrote Phyllis Schlafly a letter about the proposed Constitution proposing the abolition of the States:

          David, this convention is not about “amending” the Constitution we have. It is about replacing it – and you won’t be able to stop it. That’s the whole point of having a “convention”.

          The progressives are the ones behind this – and George Soros is funding it. The role of Mark Levin and his ilk is to suck in the patriots. Please also read this paper which shows the George soros financing. Yes, Soros can even buy a new Constitution for this Country.

          Conservatives” haven’t had any power in the country for over 100 years. Yet you think “conservatives” will run this convention? That is madness!

          We don’t have any constitutionalists in this Country except for a few like me.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | January 23, 2014 | Reply

          • If the conspiracy is as developed as you think, than it really doesn’t matter. Either way, we are all in for the chop. It’s only a matter of time. If we are going down, I don’t know about you, but I am going down fighting.

            I can’t think of a better delegate to a constitutional convention than you. If nullification can be carried out, all the better. But if SCOTUS blocks it, you had better have Plan B in the works, growing in plain sight.

            ex animo


            Comment by davidfarrar | January 23, 2014

          • Yes, Fight. Fight to defend your Constitution. With a convention, you will be surrendering it. You will lose it – that is why they are so hell-bent on having a convention. The conspirators can’t get rid of our Constitution unless YOU and others get it for them. You can fight the conspirators by denying them a convention. You are now handing it to them!

            I a delegate? Do you seriously believe that I would even be let in the door? These conspirators won’t even let me post on their websites or FB pages! In my State, we have a corrupt RINO governor and totally corrupt RINO party in charge of this state. They just love federal funding.

            Nullification? I explained in my paper, “James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers” that States have the natural right to nullify acts of the judicial branch as well as the legislative and executive branches. I quoted Madison to that effect. Neither our Constitution nor our Framers EVER said States had to obey the supreme Court! But we have been indoctrinated with a slave mentality which dictates that we must submit to whatever the supreme Court says.

            The American People have been so indoctrinated with statism that they are not fit to be drafting amendments to the Constitution.

            What the American People need to be doing is learning the Constitution we have. I prepared this one page chart which sets forth the entire system. Look at the chart and tell me WHAT NEEDS AMENDING?

            Tell me: How shall we “amend” that to MAKE the federal government obey it?


            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 24, 2014

          • These organizations are thanking you for your assistance in helping them get rid of our Constitution:


            Comment by Publius Huldah | January 26, 2014

  5. […] Huldah writes: […]


    Pingback by Huldah: Parental Rights Amendment Sells Your Kids to Big Government | USA NEWS FIRST | July 14, 2013 | Reply

  6. Deceptive naming game continues…The Parental Rights Amendment is a Trojan Horse filled with rattlesnakes. Keep away from children! #PRA


    Comment by Righting Our Consent (@ROCnewsletter) | July 13, 2013 | Reply

  7. Over on Popvox, you can see on their graph that an 84% majority currently supports the PRA (HJ Res 50):


    Comment by Teri Anderson | July 13, 2013 | Reply

  8. Hi PH,

    This is the first time I have ever heard of Mr. Farris’s also. His rebuttal, if you can call it that, only diminishes his credibility further.

    Givem’ hell Publius!

    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.” — Daniel Webster


    Comment by Randle | July 12, 2013 | Reply

    • Ah, I just made the connection! thank you – it is great! really good – it hits the nail on the head.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2013 | Reply

      • Hi PH,

        Glad you liked the showing of support.

        I fear that the flood of amendments are a distraction while their real objective is a Con Con where all types of chicanery WILL happen.

        If a line in the sand had not been drawn, it surely has been now. A Con Con will be the final act where the “new and improved” constitution will make today’s patriot a criminal and the criminal tomorrow’s patriot.

        “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” — Thomas Jefferson

        And that is exactly what these people are up to.

        Viva La Resistance!


        Ps, I think it is a safe bet that Patrick Henry is rolling in his grave with the likes of Mr. Farris being the Chancellor of a college with his name on it.

        Oh oh, you might get contacted by his lawyer demanding to be allowed a rebuttal of my comments now. 😉


        Comment by Randle | July 14, 2013 | Reply

  9. Great article. Do you think “The PRA is a delegation of lawmaking power” rather than an arrogation of such power?

    Thank you for all your great work.


    Comment by Col. B. Bunny | July 12, 2013 | Reply

    • Thanks, Col. Bunny!
      By ratifying the PRA, the oh, so foolish American People will have delegated power over the upbringing and care of children to the federal government.
      Once the PRA is part of the Constitution, the federal government will arrogate ALL power over children. Hitler Youth. Young Pioneers.

      We are too stupid to survive. It breaks my heart.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2013 | Reply

      • I fear I have earned today’s booby prize. The PRA is so radical and so bizarre that it just didn’t occur to me that anyone would have the gall seriously to propose it as an amendment to the Constitution. In retrospect, I’m thinkin’ the word “Amendment” was a dead giveaway.

        I despair of our collective lack of understanding. The hideous slaughter of the last century was an object lesson, if ever there were one, in the danger of uncontrolled state power. The European elites, however, drew from the slaughter the lesson that “nationalism” is what must be guarded against and commenced to create a new authoritarian superstate. Perhaps they keen over the absence of a global governing superstate to right all wrongs and banish poverty and greed just as our own elites do.

        The people of the Western nations seem indifferent to the theft of their liberties and the drift away from representative democracy. Our own Constitution has been eroded fatally and massive power flows to the federal government by elite design and near-universal popular acquiescence. Most of us are like passengers in the back seat of a taxi who pay no attention to the charges mounting up on the meter up front. Someone else will pay the freight apparently. Because we’re exceptional.


        Comment by Col. Bunny | July 12, 2013 | Reply

        • Oh, YOU haven’t earned the booby prize. YOU see the dangers of the PRA.

          But how can anyone not understand SECTION 3 of the PRA?

          Click on the links in my paper to H.J. Res. 50, and just under that, to the page on the website of where they have the list of House sponsors of the PRA in this Session of Congress.

          I didn’t know Farris until just now – but have learned that he is a “god” in “conservative” circles!

          My problem with people like Farris is this: I can’t believe that any lawyer is so stupid or ignorant that he doesn’t see what the PRA would do; and I can’t believe that people would be so wicked as to push the PRA while lying about what it would do. Farris has totally snowed his non-lawyer minions, of course; but any lawyer should know better. And as some of the comments to Farris’ oh! so petulant response to my paper shows, plenty of non-lawyers see right through the PRA. Read those comments – some of them are really astute.

          But I can believe that THE AMERICAN PEOPLE are so stupid that they are clueless. I read something today attributed to Adolf Hitler:

          “How lucky for those in power that people don’t think.” -Adolph Hitler

          Read more:

          Well, The Word tells us that we know people by their fruits – so it follows that the questions I have about people like Farris are academic.


          Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2013 | Reply

          • I think, too, that conservatives hear the word “Christian” and so let their guard down and become too trusting at times. We have good hearts and don’t like to think we’re being deceived. But as the scripture tells us, even the very elect will be deceived in the last days.


            Comment by Teri Anderson | July 13, 2013

          • This PRA is a monstrous deception. I hope to show this even to some of those who have been duped by the PRA. All WE have to do is to expose the Truth – We have to actively fight the PRA – but the Truth is on our side. They have to lie, deflect, smear, and intimidate to win.
            I love your comments.


            Comment by Publius Huldah | July 13, 2013

  10. Publius, section 3 brings up a couple more questions for me: Where are the deinitions for this ‘Amendment’? generally, one of the several states of the Union styled The United States of America (states) will start with an un-capitalized ‘s’, where the Territories (States) will start with a capitalized ‘S’. Congress has complete and plenary power in the territories (States), so, as the Supreme Court has said, all legislatiion is prima-facie territorial, unless the definitions say otherwise, such as “States” includes the several states party to the Constitution.

    Second thing that brings up a question for me is which Constitution are they amending?
    The original constitution for tThe United States of America, (1791) with 13 amendments (including the ‘no titles of nobility 13th amendment’), or the constitution for the District of Columbia, (1871, I think) that so conveniently looks exactly just like our constitution, but isn’t,(though it seems to have been conveniently substituted and apparently few have noticed) and has 24, or 25, or however amendments now, including the 13th amendment to that constitution, which is the slavery amendment, and the 16th amendment, which is the ‘income tax’ amendment, but only applies to the foreign territory District of Columbia, which is OUTSIDE of The United States of America ?


    Comment by gary | July 11, 2013 | Reply

    • The supreme Court will decide what ARTICLE 3 of the “parental rights” amendment means; and will decide when the government has shown a good reason for infringing “parental rights”. Well, to be precise, five (5) judges on that court will decide these things.

      Your post reflects some confusion about Congress’ powers over the Country at large [the States] and over the federal enclaves & territories. Congress’ powers over the Country at Large [the States] are narrowly defined and enumerated. Congress’ powers over the federal enclaves and Territory are broad. I explain all this here:

      As you will see, the “Territory” at Art. IV, Sec. 3, cl. 2 was the “Western Territory”.
      As the Western Territory was broken up into individual sovereign States, the general legislative jurisdiction of the federal government terminated; henceforth, Congress was to have only the “enumerated powers” over the States.

      And the business about the U.S. government being a corporation is a patriot myth. Go to my “Daily Commentary” Page
      and scroll down to: The U.S. government is NOT a Corporation!

      I do not say things which are not true.


      Comment by Publius Huldah | July 12, 2013 | Reply

  11. Hmmm….

    I suppose the next thing you will tell me is that if someone called licentiousness “liberty” or called anarchy “limited government” that people will buy those too?

    As you said, only idiots, the innately immoral, or rogues, could do so.

    “But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them. “ ~ James Madison 1788 — speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention Reference: The True Republican, French, ed. (28-29)

    Reckon what Madison and the rest of our Forefathers would say now?

    God bless Sapient


    Comment by Sapient | July 11, 2013 | Reply

    • We know what John Adams said:

      “Posterity! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it.” –John Adams Letter to Abigail Adams (27 April 1777)

      What I ponder is, has John Adams already repented or is he holding out till the final blow?

      Excellent James Madison quote by the way! It all comes down to virtue and wisdom, which is why we find ourselves in this mess with so many who are willing to drink the poison that is being sold as the cure, all without a second thought. .

      What a wretched situation indeed.

      God bless,



      Comment by Randle | July 14, 2013 | Reply

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: