🚀 go-pugleaf

Brian Trotter (btrotter@ucsu.Colorado.EDU) wrote:
: fedrick@anchor.cs.colorado.edu (Kelvin Fedrick) writes:

: >In article <55tcqs$5ji@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
: > <cddugan@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote:

: <snip: legalization of abuse?>

: >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.

: And as one of the 57% (?) who voted against 17, I must say that
: I didn't believe that it would legalize child abuse.  I thought
: it would bring the entire public school system to a crashing
: halt under a flurry a lawsuits as every second parent in the state
: filed to prevent (or require!) specific books, lessons, or even
: whole curricula from being taught.

	Evolution, "global education," sex education, all would have been 
fair game under this amendment.  The ultimate victory would have been 
achieved when the mere prospect of costly litigation prevented teachers 
and schools from even touching on potentially "controversial" areas.  
Thus, a minority of parents would effectively exercise veto power over 
what *all* children in public schools learned.  This, of course, is 
exactly the goal.

: >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.

: (plus more legal definition)

: So court precedent has set parental rights in the same place as
: Amendment 17 claimed to.  Why was it necessary?

	It wasn't necessary, except for furthering the stealth agenda of 
its creators.

: >>	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.

: This is an interesting argument, and I'm sorry to say I hadn't heard 
: it before the election.  Unfortunately, I think it would just lead
: to an exodus of mothers with custody from the state- why fight the
: system here when you can move next door and involve multiple
: states in the whole affair.  Drags the process out even longer.

	I think that joint custody should be the default judgement in 
child custody disputes (unless good reason can be given for some other 
custody arrangement.  But I cannot support achieving this goal by means 
of a sweepingly vague Parental Rights Amendment with all of the potential 
problems this entails.

Chris