Parental Rights took a Major hit Today
Over the last two weeks we have witnessed both extremes of the political spectrum clearly demonstrate their common hatred of freedom as a result of new Supreme Court opinions. Each side loves and hates different types of freedoms whether it be gun rights, privacy rights, or some other contentious rights but the one thing both sides have in common is that they both absolutely hate that others enjoy freedoms that they don’t want them to enjoy. It is not so much the political divide that we need to fear but the absolute unwillingness of either side to allow others to enjoy freedoms that are not important to that side. Each side wants only that freedom that is precious to them but no other freedoms. Freedom can only survive if it is equally respected for all and our freedoms are undeniably under attack by both sides.
First, we witnessed the liberal outrage at the court for protecting the individual right of self-protection in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the court held that the Second Amendment’s “keep and bear arms” applies outside the home. It is scary that the Constitution actually contains the written words, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” yet liberals are unwilling to permit others to enjoy this freedom they despise.
The Liberal Left uses every form of twisted logic imaginable to argue that the plain language of the Second Amendment does NOT actually mean what the plain language states. It is a sad state for liberals who seem to love actual criminals but despise regular law abiding people who simply want to be able to protect themselves against criminals.
Next, we see the liberals once again outraged because the conservative court held in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that women do NOT have the right to an abortion because the right to privacy, the right to be left alone free from government meddling in your life, is not found in the text of the constitution. The Court says that because the text does not contain these words, that we the American people do NOT have privacy rights, even though the Ninth Amendment clearly states that we retain numerous rights that are not written down in the constitution. Yesterday we had privacy rights, today we have no privacy rights, because the United States Supreme Court overturned its own holdings in Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood..
In a profoundly ironic turn, it is well-established that the federal government has only those powers enumerated in the federal constitution and nowhere in the text of the constitution will you ever find that the Supreme Court has the power to make constitutional holdings. If we do not have privacy rights because our founding fathers failed to write them down, even though they wrote down the Ninth Amendment, then by that same logic the United States Supreme Court lacks any authority to make that holding. The Supreme Court is using logic to destroy rights that if consistently applied destroys the Court’s most important power right along with our rights.
In overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court did two things 1) it made the Ninth Amendment a useless ineffective appendage to the United States Constitution and 2) it declared that we are NOT a free and independent nation with God given rights to individual freedom. The Court has declared that government is free to regulate morality without bothering to explain how moral choices are any different from religious choices and that our default state of existence in this country is that we are subjects of the government entitled only to those rights the Supreme Court deems us worthy of.
I may be mistaken but I’m fairly certain that George Washington and the Revolutionary Army did NOT suffer years of devastating hardships singing “Let us all be subjects of an American government.” The battle cry of the Revolutionary War was not let us be slaves to the moral choices of hour neighbors instead of the moral choices of King George. Our constitution is a social contract that successive generations buy into and fight for precisely because it promises freedom with equal rights for all. That social contract only survives and only has power if the American people, free and independent by natural right and by force of the Revolutionary War, choose to give it power and choose to fight for its survival. Both idiotic extremes need to keep in mind that their power can very easily be taken away from them.
I for one, did NOT join the Marine Corps at seventeen and become a Marine Infantryman on the week of my eighteenth birthday for the right to be a subject of the government, nor did I do it so that the Liberal Left could take my guns, nor did I do it so that the Conservative Right could impose their religion on me through government force and violence. I put my life on the line for freedom, not just for myself but for everyone who sets foot on American soil, and I will continue to do so till my dying day.
What the conservative court is attempting to create by overturning Roe is 50 different sets of morality codes imposed through government force and violence by each State’s morality police leaving the federal government with little to no ability to establish minimum standards of freedom. Under the conservative court’s vision our state governments become absolutely the same in kind as the Iranian regime and ISIS, differing only in the degree of force and violence they can use to impose their religious beliefs onto the rest of us.
To get around the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom, the conservative court plays semantics claiming that their is some kind of meaningful difference between imposing the majority’s “moral beliefs” onto others by force and imposing the majority’s “religious beliefs” onto others by force. The only difference between a moral belief and a religious belief is the branding or trademarking of the particular strain of moral belief. If your moral beliefs have a brand that the majority accepts then your moral beliefs are fully protected. If your moral beliefs are uniquely your own, then your individual moral beliefs receive zero protection.
I may be a little dense, but I don’t find one iota of difference between American morality police and Iranian religious police. There is not a single ray of light that can shine between the two concepts. Morality police are religious police who simply don’t acknowledge a trademark brand. We are beginning to see that the conservative right does NOT want real moral or religious freedom any more than the Puritans who persecuted the Pilgrims did. The conservative right just like ISIS, wants to use government force and violence to compel us all to abide by their beliefs, not because their beliefs are better but because they control the government monopoly on use of force and use of violence against the people.
The right to privacy is the right to be left alone by the government. Today that right to be left alone is all but destroyed. Sure, this conservative court has a way yet to go before it creates the American theocracy that it dreams of where its religious, I mean morality police are free to invade every home, every private decision, and every aspect of what you once thought of as your private life.
Why is the loss of privacy rights bad for parental rights?
Your parental rights are privacy rights. If privacy rights go away a large portion of your privacy rights go with them. Justice Thomas who is now the leader of this conservative court told us all what he thinks of unenumerated parental rights in Troxel:
I write separately to note that neither party has argued that our substantive due process cases were wrongly decided and that the original understanding of the Due Process Clause precludes judicial enforcement of unenumerated rights under that constitutional provision. As a result, I express no view on the merits of this matter, and I understand the plurality as well to leave the resolution of that issue for another day.
In Troxel, the Court held that the right to care, custody, and control over one’s children is a fundamental right. Justice kennedy made clear in his dissent against the holding in Troxel that parental rights are privacy rights, as the Court has held many times.
Our cases leave no doubt that parents have a fundamental liberty interest in caring for and guiding their children, and a corresponding privacy interest—absent exceptional circumstances—in doing so without the undue interference of strangers to them and to their child.
Someone just argued that those “substantive due process cases” that Justice Thomas wrote about “were wrongly decided” and the conservative supreme court struck down your substantive due process privacy rights today. If the Court were to here Troxel again tomorrow, Justice Thomas would now hold that even if somehow you have some vestige of parental rights, you lack any right of privacy in exercising your parental rights, “without the undue interference of strangers to them and to their child.”
This is precisely why we introduce the constitutional history of parental rights being considered “property rights” when the constitutional was ratified and when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. This concept of parental rights as privacy rights establishes a floor below which constitutional protection of parental rights cannot fall. Conservative tend to be very protective of property rights because the right to own property is very important to them personally and they made clear that they will NOT protect their neighbor’s right to disagree with them..
How can you argue that your privacy rights in parenting should be protected after you just celebrated depriving women of privacy rights over their own bodies and reinstating biological slavery? How can you argue that your child support awards are unfair when you just subjected countless women to 18 years or more of financial slavery? If you want to win the moral argument, then you need the moral high ground. Without it you have little chance. If you are celebrating today, you are leaving the high ground for others.
This is exactly why we have also been raising the issue of parental rights as First Amendment rights of speech and association. First Amendment rights are well-established with lots of protective case law but look out. The right to association is nowhere written in the constitution other than the right to peaceably assemble to petition the government. The Supreme Court claims you have a right and duty to educate your child, but you have no written right to associate with your child for that purpose. How exactly are you going to educate your child when you cannot associate with your child?
While there may be a mountain of caselaw protecting the First Amendment right to association for intimate and expressive purposes that caselaw is no more important than Roe and Casey were to this conservative court and no more important to the liberal left than are the express written words of the Second Amendment.
Be very careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
I know many dads out there who are desperately missing their children and who are also celebrating today over this win for the theocratic state, but it won’t be long before you are crying over what today you cheered losing.
Liberals will be of little help to parents because of their moronic attempt to unwrite the Second Amendment and their belief that the State owns your child. Because of the Left’s lunacy they have zero constitutional moral authority to decry loss of privacy rights. It is a sad, sad day because left and right alike are burning bridges of freedom just as fast as they can with little or no thought to what the aftermath will be.
Parental rights took a major hit today, and both liberals and conservatives are to blame because both sides blatantly hate individual freedom for anyone but themselves. It is just that each idiotic side hates slightly different freedoms and they battle endlessly over their right to enslave us the American people to their particular view of freedom and no other. You are free to believe so long as you believe exactly as they command.
The two sides are NOT battling over expanding freedoms for us all, the two sides are battling for the right to rule over us all as mere serfs, subjects of the State. The end result of this war is that we will all be enslaved together right, left, and middle under some type of popular strong man like Putin and that fool will lead us to destruction as Putin has led Russia.
If we want to survive and prosper as a nation we either agree to protect real freedom equally for everyone or we are lost. Freedom only works if each person cares as much for the freedoms of others as they care for their own freedoms. Meanwhile, our elected officials are bickering over which sect is going to rule over us while our country burns.
Beginner's Guide to Family Law
A Simplified Path to Parental Rights
For a loving parent, a child custody suit can be a time of terror. The most important thing in your life is at stake and it doesn't take long to figure out that the system is rigged against you. This book provides simple straight forward and easy to understand ways to help ensure that your rights get protected. This is the starter guide for you to protect your rights.