Publius-Huldah's Blog

Understanding the Constitution

Parents’ Statutory "Bill of Rights" – a massive Transfer of Power over Children from Parents to Governments

By Joanna Martin, J.D. (Publius Huldah)

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.”  – Ayn Rand

I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth.”  – Martin Luther


On February 2 of this year (2023), the North Carolina Senate passed SB 49, which bears the deceptive title of “Parents’ Bill of Rights”. It transfers massive open-ended powers over children to the federal and state governments and to the “governing body” of the school. The Parents are “granted” enumerated rights 1 and every such right is qualified by exceptions which may be carved out at any time by the various levels of governments. This is a profoundly evil piece of work; and if it passes the House, Parents in North Carolina with minor children would be wise to consider leaving the State and taking their children with them.

Civilizations – and Nations – arise on one belief system – and collapse on another. Let us begin by looking at the belief system embraced during our Founding Era respecting the Origin of Rights and the purpose of government. Then we will look at the belief system embraced from the time the first Colonists settled our Country respecting the parent child relation until the rise, during the 1840s, of public education. 2 Then I will show you the belief system respecting “Rights” which is being pushed on us by those who seek to strip us of our God given rights.


1. Our Founding Principles respecting the Origin of Rights and the purpose of government

Our Declaration of Independence is the fundamental act of our Founding, and part of the “organic law” – foundational law – of our Land. There we recognized the existence of self-evident Truths – Truths which come from above – which have a transcendent origin – which were woven in to the Fabric of Reality by the Creator God. The five Truths we recognized in our Declaration are:

(1)  All men are created equal. This is our formal acknowledgment that we have a Creator; and we are equal before The Law.

(2) Rights have a transcendent origin – they come from the Creator God. Thus, our Rights have existed since the Dawn of Creation.

(3) The purpose of government is to secure the Rights God gave us. We thus declared that the purpose of government is the hallowed one of carrying out God’s Will respecting the Rights God determined we have.

(4) People create governments. The first three words of our Constitution, “We The People”, were the most radical ever written to establish a government. With those three words, we repudiated the European model where political power originates with the king or the State. 3 Under the European model, people are subjects to the Absolute Will of civil government. But our Constitution was founded on the Principle that … The People are the “pure, original fountain of all legitimate political authority”. 4

(5) And when a government becomes destructive of our God given rights, we have the Right – We have the Duty – to alter, abolish, or throw off such government.

These are our Founding Principles. By invoking these Truths, we acknowledged that Rights have a transcendent origin; and further, that the purpose of government is the hallowed one of carrying out God’s Will respecting the Rights God determined we have.


2. The Parent-Child Relation ordained by God

The Creator God who, as acknowledged by our Declaration of Independence, endowed us with unalienable Rights; also assigned to parents specific responsibilities to their children. Parents are to:

  • Provide for their children’s physical needs: 2 Corinthians 12:14; Proverbs 13:22; 1 Timothy 5:8; 2 Thessalonians 3:10-12.
  • Provide for the education and moral instruction of their 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; and they are to
  • Discipline their children: Proverbs 13: 24, 15:5, 19:18, 22:15, 23:12-14, 29:15-17; Hebrews 12:5-11; Colossians 3:21.

Nowhere in the Bible does God endow civil government with power over the education and upbringing of children. Those responsibilities are vested in Parents.


3. The new Belief system: the United Nation’s Concept of Rights – qualified and conditional grants from governments to serve the government’s interests

For well over 100 years, our Founding Principles have been under attack. We’ve been conditioned to believe that Rights come from Constitutions, from Legislatures, or from the Courts; that governments may serve their own interests instead of securing God-given rights; and to accept the authoritarian model where the People are subjects of the governments.

SB 49 adopts the new conception of “rights” illustrated in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Here is a quick overview of that Declaration:

  • Article 8 provides we have the rights granted to us by the constitution or by law.
  • Article 21 provides that “the will of the people” is the basis of the authority of government; and that “the will of the people” is expressed by those whom they elect to public office.
  • Article 29 provides that our rights & freedoms can’t ever be exercised “contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”

So! In this brave new world of the United Nations, rights come from government; governments may do whatever “the people” want them to do [instead of securing rights God gave us – and the Will of the People is expressed by those whom they elect to public office]; and rights are subject to the will of the United Nations [not God].

The United Nations doesn’t acknowledge any authority superior to itself. Contrast that with our Declaration of Independence which reflects the Principle that governments are God’s agents to carry out God’s Will respecting the Rights God gave us.


4. North Carolina’s SB 49

The bill is single-spaced and a little over 10 pages long. It’s visually difficult to read. Who would bother reading beyond the Short Title, which is “Parents’ Bill of Rights”? Surely, the 23 Sponsors didn’t bother to read it; and surely the 29 Republican Senators who voted for it didn’t read it. No one with a conscience could read this and support it.

In a nutshell, what SB 49 does is to transfer power over children from parents to governments. Parents’ “rights” consist of the privilege of being notified [sometimes] of decisions made respecting their children by governments; and they are granted certain rights to challenge some of the decisions.

Here are some of the provisions of SB 49:

· Page 1, lines 27-30 grant to parents the right to enroll their child in any school choice option “available to the parent” for which the child is “eligible by law”. So parents can’t homeschool unless the Legislature permits it.

· Page 1, lines 31-33: the federal government will decide which education records kept on their child parents may see.

· Page 1, lines 34-35 thru Page 2, lines 1- 9: Parents have the right to make health care decisions for their child unless the State Legislature or the federal government say they can’t make the decisions.

· Page 2, lines 10-31 grant to parents the right to prohibit the creation, sharing, or storage of a biometric scan, the blood or DNA, or a video or voice recording of their child, unless the government decides to collect and store this data.

· Page 2, lines 32-35 grant to Parents the right to be notified if a State employee suspects that a crime has been committed against their child – unless the government decides parents shouldn’t be notified.

· Page 2, lines 38-46 list some of the things parents are not “authorized” to do, such as “abusing the child”. The State Legislature will decide what constitutes “abusing the child”. When I was in junior high school, it was my responsibility to take care of the chickens: I cleaned their coops, cleaned and filled their water buckets, feed them and gathered the eggs. Was that “child abuse”? I expect there is no shortage of loons who declare that having children do farm chores constitutes “child abuse”.

· Page 3 informs parents that they are in “partnership” with the public schools and grants to parents the right to “participate” in their child’s education.

· Page 4, lines 1-34 grant to parents the “legal rights” to withhold consent for their child’s participation in reproductive health programs; to seek exemptions from immunization requirements; to review standardized test results; to inspect school textbooks; to opt out of certain “data collections” for their child; to participate in “protected student information surveys”, and so forth, consistent with the requirements of law. So if the Law requires that the data on your child be collected, then it will be collected and parents can’t stop it.

· Page 4, lines 35 to 50 provide that the State Board of Education will decide what parents “need to know” about their child’s educational progress. So if the State Board decides parents don’t need to know, then parents won’t be informed.

SB 49 goes on and on like this for 6 more pages. I’ll mention only a few of the more virulent features in the remaining pages. Pages 6 – 7 address the “governing bodies of public school units”. Page 6, lines 1-37 state that the governing body 5 is to develop policies which “provide for parental choices and establish parental responsibilities.” Please let that sink in. Who is in charge of your children? The governing body of the school is in charge – and they are given statutory authority to tell parents what they can and can’t do respecting their child.

Page 8, lines 11-17 assure parents that their child will not receive “instruction on gender identity, sexual activity, or sexuality from kindergarten thru the 4th grade! Wow! So what can happen in the 5th grade? Your child will doubtless receive detailed instruction on [I beg your Pardon for speaking of these things, but this is what our little children are being subjected to in the public schools] how to perform and receive anal intercourse, how to provide and receive oral sex, and who knows what other sexual practices? Your son will no doubt be encouraged to believe that he is really a girl; and your daughter will no doubt be encouraged to believe that she is really a boy. Look around you, People! This monstrous evil is going on in the public schools right now – and the poisonous SB 49 legalizes it beginning with the 5th grade.

Page 9, lines 5-34 establish procedures for school children to be transformed into STASI like informers on their parents. 6 These lines describe “protected information surveys“. These surveys will obtain information revealing the political affiliations or beliefs of the student’s parents; mental or psychological problems of the student or his family; sex behavior or attitudes; self-incriminating behavior; critical appraisals of students’ family relationships; religious practices of the student or the student’s parents; and so forth. But don’t worry – parents will be given 10 days’ notice and the opportunity to review the survey before it is administered and parents may opt out. The schools will no doubt fall down on the job of providing the advance notification to parents. Furthermore, this provision to “opt out” will be repealed just as that provision in the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which assured Americans that their Federal Reserve Notes would be fully redeemable in gold was repealed. And see the boldfaced words discussed above at comment on Page 4, lines 1-34: If this information is required by law to be collected, then it will be collected and children will be turned into STASI agents for the State.


5. Legislative irresponsibility and Citizens’ shallowness permit evil legislation to be passed

Legislators should STOP voting for legislation they haven’t read and don’t understand. It is immoral for bill sponsors to repeat the talking points they were given by those who drafted Legislation unless the sponsor has made an independent critical assessment of the legislation to determine whether the talking points are True or False. Citizens must read beyond the title and look behind the curtain before they clamor for passage of bills with great-sounding titles.


1 This is a total inversion of our Founding Principles: With our Constitution of 1787, we created a federal government to which We The People delegated enumerated powers – with all other powers being reserved to the States or The People. With SB 49, the Rights of the People are enumerated – and all “rights” not granted to the People by the governments are held back by the governments.

2 Samuel L. Blumenfeld’s book, “Is Public Education Necessary”, is a masterpiece which shows how the public school system was foisted on the American People. You can read his work here.

3 I use the term, “State”, the way the political philosophers use it: It refers to the civil government – not to, e.g., the State of Tennessee.

4 Federalist Paper No. 22, last sentence (Alexander Hamilton).

5 How are the members of the “governing body” selected? Are they elected? Are they appointed? Who appoints them?

6 STASI is the acronym for the Ministerium für Staatssicherheit (Committee for State Security) which was the security service for the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). It operated by means of civilian informants. If you want to see what it was like to live under such a system, watch this movie, The Lives of Others. That movie accurately depicts life in East Germany under the STASI.

March 4, 2023 Posted by | Parents' Bill of Rights, UN Declaration of Rights | , | 14 Comments

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  and compare it with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights:  1


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.  [all boldface mine]

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 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

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.”


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.


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.


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,, Troxel v. Granville, UN Declaration of Rights | , , , , , , , | 37 Comments


%d bloggers like this: