🚀 go-pugleaf

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.


>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?


>>	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.

>>	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.

1) See above.
2) Court interpretations are responsible for at least one other
right "right now", one that those same groups are very enamoured
of (correctly, IMHO).  If you want to reinforce a court decision,
why not try legislation?  You only need to change the Constitution
if the courts have rules _against_ an issue on Constitutional grounds.

>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.

Given that 90% of the arguments seemed to revolve around child abuse,
I would agree with you.  But that doesn't change the fact that the
other 10%, the parts about censoring or closing school libraries,
shutting down "controversial" programs like sex education or 
evolution, setting up voucher programs "so we can avoid shutting
down the public schools with lawsuits" and so forth, were enough to
keep this particular voter from supporting the amendment.

--Brian Trotter
btrotter@rastro.colorado.edu