🚀 go-pugleaf

   
>    
> In article <55tcqs$5ji@carbon.cudenver.edu>,   
>  <cddugan@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote:   
> >: The issue is hardly one confined to the religious right;    
> >   
> >	Yet, it is the religious right which is pushing this "Parental    
> >Rights Amendment" nationwide.   
>    
> And what of the 43% who voted for this amendment as I did? I guess you think   
> we're just all wanna-be child abusers. Sorry, but this is just bigoted   
> demonization. If you feel otherwise, please provide me with a citation   
> indicating that the "religious right" are more prone to child abuse than   
> others. Furthermore, in case you missed it, there were also attorney's   
> (former state US attorney or something), doctors (pediatrician), and judges   
> (I beleive) [Daily Camera a while back], that said all the stuff about   
> this legalizing child abuse was bull.   
>    
> The bottom line is that opponents got scared after people continued to   
> support the amemdment even knowing that is was introduced by the   
> "religious right" so they stooped to spreading lies.   
>    
> >   
> >: in truth it is a        
> >: human right for children to be raised by parents.    
> >   
> >	I think everyone pretty much agrees with the above statement.    
> >Problems arise when this is elevated to an "inalienable" right taking   
> >precedence over all other considerations based upon the best interests of   
> >the child.   
>    
> I've discussed this before. (1) There is *nothing* in the amendment that   
> said *anything* about parental rights taking precedence over all other   
> considerations. If there was, then you'd have a valid concern (2) There are   
> already cases which I've cited before that recognize these exact same   
> parental rights as "fundamental" and "natural".  (3) That is the *exact*   
> same level of pretection as "inalienable" - all require a compelling interest   
> before the government can intervene, and the intervention must be the least   
> intrusive possible. (4) American jurisprudence is already *well established*   
> in how conflicts of rights (as in parental rights vs rights of the child)   
> are weighted (see excerpt below). (5) Some of the US SC cases which   
> recognized parental rights as fundamental, even discuss the limits of   
> parental rights.   
>    
> Barron's Law Dictionary   
>    
>    INALIENABLE RIGHTS   
>    Fundamental rights, ... that cannot be transfered to others nor surrendered   
>    except by the person possessing them.   
>    
>    BILL OF RIGHTS   
>    While given the highest constitutional protection, these [fundamental]   
>    rights, may not be absolute. Courts will of necessity balance and limit   
>    them when they clash with one another. ... Thus it has been said that   
>    freedom of speech does not extent to the right to yell "fire" [should be   
>    'falsely yell "fire"' actually] in a crowded theater. ... And, the free   
>    exercise of religion will be constrained where it's practice seriously   
>    endangers the lives of others, ...   
>    
> The bottom line is that legal definition of inalienable doesn't mean what   
> you are trying to say it means. All of the opponents to this amendment with   
> legal background *knew* that, but played on the ignorance of the general   
> public to foster these lies about child abuse, simply to forward *their*   
> agendas.   
>    
> Still think inalienable means that the government can't take it away? Well   
> then please explain why the death penalty hasn't been ruled unconstitutional   
> in this state despite the fact that the right to life which is listed in the   
> section of the Colorado constitution inumerating "inalienable right"? That's   
> right. The word "inalienable" wasn't introduced by the "religious right" as   
> opponents lead people to believe. It was *already* there! Please explain   
> why people can still have property confiscated despite the "inalienable   
> right" of "acquiring, possessing and protecting property"?   
>    
> How about because,   
>    
>    Limitations may be placed upon an inalienable or inherent right if the   
>    limitation is based upon a proper exercise of the police power.   
>    People v. Brown, 174 Colo. 513, 485 P.2d 500 (1971), appeal dismissed,   
>    404 U.S. 1007, 92 S. Ct. 671, 30 L. Ed.2d 656 (1972).    
>    
> Just to pull *one* reference out of the annotation to this section.   
>    
> Child abuse is a crime and nothing about this amendment would have changed   
> that or made it impossible to remove a persons parental rights for valid   
> reasons, such as the childs safety.   
>    
> >What about parents who allow babies to lie around in the same   
> >filthy diaper for so long that skin necrosis sets in?  What about parents   
> >who drag their child up three flights of stairs by her hair and then whip   
> >her with an ironing cord until she has bloody welts all over her body, and   
> >claim that they are just exercising their inalienable constitutional right   
> >under the Parental Rights Amendment to "discipline" their child in   
> >whatever manner they deem appropriate?    
>    
> (1) The amendment said nothing about "discipline in whatever manner they   
> deem appropriate". If there was, you'd have a valid concern. (2) See excerpt   
> above regarding rights not being absolute.   
>    
> >	A "Parental Rights Amendment" won't make any difference to parents   
> >who aren't committing legal child abuse or neglect.  It only helps parents   
> >who are borderline abusers get away with battering their kids or keeping    
> >them chained up in the basement.   
>    
> No it won't. It could have, however, very likely helped divorce father's,   
> who routinely have their parental rights suspended regardless of their   
> fitness, to hold onto those rights by establishing a presumption of joint   
> legal custody. IMO it would have done just that.   
>    
> >	Parents already have the right to raise their children and instill   
> >values in their children as long as they are not committing gross abuse or   
> >neglect.   
>    
> (1) Unless you're a divorced father. (2) Are you sure? Where is it written in   
> the constitution? You are partially correct *right now*. But the right was   
> only *infered* in a rather indirect manner by the US SC, and as such owes   
> it's existence completely to the interpretation of the court. I saw a case   
> not long ago where a justice in Wisconsin I think, tried to argue that   
> parental right *aren't* fundamental. There are legislators, women's groups,   
> and judges all over the country who are trying to argue that they aren't   
> rights at all for unwed fathers who want to raise their child rather than   
> allow the mother to put it up for adoption.   
>    
> >The "Parental Rights Amendment" is designed to accomplish a long   
> >list of agendas of the Religious Right while appearing innocuous on the   
> >surface.  It is a stealth tactic.   
>    
> Like their agenda to abuse their children, huh? Other than that, whether   
> they had an agenda or not is immaterial since I am 100% convinced that   
> 90% of the arguments made against this were gross distortions and outright   
> fabrications.   
>    
> >Fortunately, the majority of Colorado voters weren't fooled.    
>    
> Oh, but they were. But it wasn't the religious right that played them for a   
> fool.   
>    
> -kelvin   
>   
  
I think I will just thank kelvin for answering this and leave it at that. He has    
covered more ground than I could have, apparently being a Colorado resident.  
  
If those who would protect the rights of children could see clearly, they would    
begin with the child's right to be raised by parents. That right is immediately    
endangered, and this failed amendment is a symptom of that endangerment. I am,   
in a general way, against meddling with Constitutions, whether they be State or   
Federal, but we need to look at this as a wake up call. If enough parents are   
feeling pressed to support such a measure, there is a problem. 
 
Lynn 
  
Lynn

lynnt@sean.oregon.com  ***  Mom to Kimberly, 15  ***   Homeschooler   
Aun Aprendo                     *****                    Team OS/2