Registered: 1078687818 Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote #1
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights. (Introduced in House)
97 IH 110th CONGRESS 2d Session H . J . RES . 97 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 26, 2008
Mr. HOEKSTRA introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to parental rights. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification: `Article -- `Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right. `Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served. `Section 3. 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.'. __________________ IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers
"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Registered: 1117129928 Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote #2
this is a good thing but I think it is way too vague to help us much just as the term joint leagal custody is a farce. But if we can get some judges off their dead rears and interpret it properly then just maby.
__________________ What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.