Don’t be fooled by daddy government
A right cannot be regulated.
Is daddy government in charge of your family? Or did some legality trick you out of your right to have a family?
The United States Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, quoted below, determined that the right to raise children exists independently from any State authority.
So why can divorce courts rip apart your family, and you cannot even get a trial by jury? Why do the courts take half of the wealth from the innocent and give it as a reward for adultery? And to think that just 100 years ago, adultery was the greatest of civil injuries “… wherein the damages recovered are usually very large and exemplary.”
And why can state agencies step in and kidnap your children with only an anonymous rumor of abuse, without probable cause — and you don’t get to confront the witnesses against you?
How can such injustice be true in a country where in 1993 a federal court ruled in Qutb v. Strauss, 11 F3d 488?
“Parents right to rear children without undue governmental interference is a fundamental component of due process.”
Men defend their families. Which is why we created government and built castles and marched off to war. How can America win another war if men are reduced to submissive wimps who are merely custodians of the state’s children?
US Supreme Court in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390, at page 399:
The term Liberty “… denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience… the established doctrine is that this liberty may not be interfered with under the guise of protecting public interest, by legislative action which is arbitrary or without reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state to effect.”
US Supreme Court in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510 (1925):
“As often heretofore pointed out, rights guaranteed by the Constitution may not be abridged by legislation which has no reasonable relation to some purpose within the competency of the state. The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only. The child is not the mere creature of the state; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.”
Read that again:
“The fundamental theory …upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the state to standardize its children…”
“The child is not the mere creature of the state…”
And keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld fourteenth amendment rights to privacy because family decisions about bearing and rearing children are strictly private. Roe v. Wade, Zablocki v. Redhail 434 US 374, Meyer v. Nebraska 262 US 390, Pierce v. Society of Sisters 268 US 510.
For more information on the very limited government authority to interfere with child rearing, study the Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act of 1921, 42 Stat 224, formerly 42 USC 161-175, and the Federal Birth Registration areas of 1929, and Meeker v. US 350 US 199, and Chapter 135 sect 9, 42 USC 225 which gave the Children’s Bureau power to enter homes and take children. More about this in the article on Birth Certificates
It is within the state’s (or anyone else’s) legitimate functions to ignore rights to liberty in order to protect the life of a child. But that is the extent of limited government. Liberty, like any other freedom is “susceptible to restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect” (This phrase was used in many Supreme Court decisions to protect your rights. Carrol v. Princess Anne 393 U.S. 175, Thomas v. Collins 323 U.S. 516, West Virginia v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624, in re Brown 9 Cal.3d 612 West’s Constitutional law, key 84, 90, 91 — etc.)
- The Supreme Court (in Plyler v. Doe, 457 US 202) would not even say that children were subject to the laws of a state.
- And John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government said that parental rights are all based upon “divine revealed law” in the Bible. This was repeated in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law. And children when they are 21 years old would chose which government to place themselves under.
- Even Roe v. Wade says that family decisions about bearing and rearing children are strictly private.
LIMITING PARENTAL ROLES
The United States Supreme Court case Prince v. Massachusetts was a case about a child labor law that restricted the distribution of religious tracts for profit by young teenagers. Many States use this as proof that they can limit parental roles. But more recent cases use this same Prince case as proof that government is restricted from interfering with family life. Even recent abortion cases cite the Prince case as proof that government cannot interfere with family decisions on bearing or rearing children.
John Locke’s Second Treatise of government, which was the foundation for most of the Declaration of Independence, in his Chapter 6 “Paternal rights”, says that a child is not subject to legislated laws until he is old enough to make binding contracts. He said in paragraph 57: “for nobody can be under a law, which is not promulgated to him” and later in paragraph 73 when children become 21 years old they can choose which government to place themselves under, and, according to paragraph 62, this cannot happen until they have the recognized right to take binding oaths of allegiance.
Yeager v. Hackensack, 615 FSupp 1087, citing the authority of Roe v. Wade, confirmed that:
“Right to be free from compelled disclosure of names of household members is within right of privacy protected by Constitution.”
Doyle v. Wilson, 529 F.Supp 1343 (1982):
“Generally, the constitutional right to privacy embodies solely “those personal rights that can be deemed fundamental or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” McElrath v. Califano, 615 F.2d 434, 441 (C.A.7, 1980), quoting Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 152, 93 S.Ct. 705, 726, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973). The activities ordinarily embraced by this definition relate to the intimate facets of an individual’s personal life, namely, marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing or education. Paul v. Davis, 434 U.S. 693, 713, 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1166, 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976); Jaffess v. Secretary, Dept. of Health, Ed. & Welfare, 393 F.Supp 626, 629 (S.D.N.Y. 1975).”
I hate to use the United Nations as a source of law, but here are some examples that a judge might recognize as binding on them:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26: “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection…”
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”