Truth Bomb 2 Part 1

Truth Bomb number 2 is, it is your right to  educate your child is protected by the First   Amendment. Not someone else's right, you're right  as a parent -- is tied to your parental rights.   You get to protect, you get to educate your  children. Not the government, not the judge,   you. The Supreme Court has been  very explicit in this regard,   and it's held specifically that -- the  right to educate one's children as one   chooses is made applicable to the states by the  force of the First and the Fourteenth Amendments.   And education is very simple. It is simply  the expression and the reception of fact   and ideas. And what receives the most protection  is your right to teach your child your personal  

values. Those ideas that come to you as a matter  of conscience. Ideas about religion, about life,   about our existence in the universe -- why  we exist. All of these kind of questions,   deeply personal questions. It's your job  to convey to your child your beliefs. Your   ex has the same right and the same duty. And then  your child is to incorporate all of that into who   they are as they grow up and when they become  an adult they get to decide for themselves   what their place in the universe is, and the  foundation for that comes from the parents.   Not from a judge, not from the state, not from  the government -- from two fit parents. If the  

child has two fit parents, married or not, that  child has a right to those two parents, and has   a right to learn equally from those two parents.  No judge has a right to get in the way of this.   If you're fit, that judge has no authority to get  in between. The First Amendment doesn't allow it.   They come up with all kind of excuses, but you  need to know, Supreme Court says your right,   your individual right to educate your child is  protected by the First Amendment. And you need   to stand up and present that to the Court  and require the Court to treat your rights   with the respect they deserve. So essential to  the First Amendment is both the right to speak  

and the right to receive. The speaker has a  right and the receiver has a right, both right   are protected by the First Amendment. Speaking  and receiving go hand and hand. So inherent   in the intimate association between parent and  child is the parent's duty to educate the child   in a manner which preferably makes them  productive citizens. But at least to a   degree that keeps them from becoming  a burden on others. Hold up, hold up,   you're state statutes however are making  you believe that the judge gets to override   your values, morals, and teachings. And when he  does that he violates your right to be who you   choose to be and to share that with your child,  and to develop your child in the ways that you  

decide are right for your child. And the attorney  just says the attorney has a right to do this   because the statute says he does. And sometimes  your rights are expressed in the form of duties   and responsibilities. Ron's going to  explain. The Supreme Court has expressed   this duty in the following manner. The duty to  prepare the child for additional obligations   must be read to include the inculcation  of moral standards, religious beliefs and   elements of good citizenship. This affirmative  process of teaching, guiding, and inspiring by   precept and example is essential to the growth  of young people to mature, socially responsible   citizens. That's the Supreme Court's words,  word for word. That matters. Okay? The Supreme  

Court says it, no state judge can overrule it or  say it doesn't matter. We need to put it before   these judges and demand that they respect it to  the level that the Supreme Court requires. Now,   in that statement, the words precept and  example are critical elements of the holding.   The word precept simply means "by guiding rule."  You're teaching your children guiding rules for   life. Precepts. What's more interesting  than precept in the child custody context,   is the example part of the statement. So  how exactly does a parent teach their child   by example if the state custody judge doesn't let  them have any time with their child? Or gives them   only a certain kind of time. Any limitation on  your time directly affects your child and what  

they can receive. It limits your ability to  comply with your duty to educate your child.   So, unless there's a way to teach by example  without associating with the person you are   teaching, this reference to example by the  Court means you're right to associate with your   child for the purpose of educating them by  example is protected by the First Amendment.   Children learn by watching what we do. They are  always watching. Even when you think they are   not watching, they are watching, and they are  learning. They are seeing what you do and how   you respond in all kinds of situations. From  the most mundane boring situations in life   to the most important. They are always  watching and they are always learning.  

And they take this to heart even if they don't  consciously recognize it. They take it to heart   and they will remember these things for the rest  of their lives. And they will apply these things   they learn in their adult lives in ways they won't  even recognize. Nevertheless, they are there and   you are building this foundation. So in another  case, the Supreme Court explained the reason the   First Amendment protects intimate associations, is  because it is through these bonds of affection we   transmit shared ideals and beliefs from generation  to generation. The Court stated it this way, "The   Court has long recognized that because the Bill of  Rights is designed to secure individual liberty,   it must afford the formation and preservation of  certain kinds of highly personal relationships  

a substantial measure of sanctuary from  unjustified interference by the state. We have   noted that certain kinds of personal bonds have  played a critical role in culture and traditions   of the nation. By cultivating and transmitting  shared ideals and beliefs, they thereby foster   diversity and act as critical buffers between  the individual and the power of the state."   This is not the first time the Court had  something to say about the role of intimate family   associations in sharing values across generations.  Some years earlier, the Court stated it this way,   "Our decisions establish that the constitution  protects the sanctity of the family precisely   because the institution of the family is deeply  rooted in this nation's history and tradition.  

It is through the family that we inculcate and  pass down many of our most cherished values,   moral and cultural. Ours is by no means limited  to the tradition of the respect on uniting the   members of a nuclear family." So, here they  are saying that this is core to our nations   history and tradition, the respect that we  give families -- parent-child associations.   And the Court is also saying it is not limited  to the nuclear family. The Court protects   association pairs. The smallest nuclear family  in existence is actually a collection of three   protected family units. There is the marital  association between husband and wife. That   is a protected family unit whether or not they  have children. When they have a child, they add  

two more distinctly protected associations. On  top of the marital association between the mother   and the father, they now have a parent-child  association between the mother and the child   and a parent-child association between the father  and the child. These three individually separately   protected family units combined establish the  nuclear family. And it is only through these   individual associations that the nuclear family  can receive any kind of constitutional protection.   And that's because our constitution protects  individual rights. Not group rights. Not   large membership rights. Even when you're  talking about your right to associate with a,   a political party with numbers in the millions,  it's not the group that receives protection,   it's each individual in the group  that receives the protection.  

Now it may be worded in terms of group to make  it easier to understand. But when you get down to   nuts and tacks, it is each individual association  that gets the protection. So, the smallest,   when we talk about equal protection of large  groups, what we're really talking about is each   individual. It may be a member of a particular  group, has a right to be treated the same.   So the smallest group the equal protection clause  protects is the individual. It always protects the   individual. Some years later, the Supreme Court  had some more to say about association rights of   natural parents and their children. And the Court  said it this way, "Choices about marriage, family  

life, and the upbringing of children, are among  the associational rights this Court has ranked   as a basic importance in our society. Rights  sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against   the state's unwarranted usurpation disregard or  disrespect a parent's desire for and right to   the companionship, care, custody, and management  of his or her children is an important interest.   One that undeniably warrants deference. And absent  a powerful, countervailing interest, protection.   The interest of parents and their relationship  with their children is sufficiently fundamental   to come within the finite class of liberty  interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.   So, here, the reference to the Fourteenth  Amendment is not a denial that the protected   rights are protected by the First Amendment, but  instead is a statement that the First Amendment  

protected rights are protected from the action  of states because it is the Fourteenth Amendment   which applies constitutional  limitations to the states.   Before the Fourteenth Amendment, the federal  constitution simply didn't limit the states.   The Fourteenth Amendment was put in  place to compel the states to comply   with our federal constitution. So, in the 50s,  60s, and 70s, when the black civil rights movement   was really changing our nation,  they faced two significant problems:   One was black people in general didn't really  believe they had rights they could fight for;   and, two, there weren't any significant number  of court opinions or case law that would support   the idea that black people had rights. So  they had to do two things. First, people  

like Martin Luther King, Jr. and churches, black  churches all over the country started talking to   black people and telling them they had rights, and  teaching them they had rights, and getting them   willing to fight for their rights. And  then people like Thurgood Marshall,   who was a civil rights attorney, and who later  became a Supreme Court justice -- the first black   Supreme Court justice we've ever had. He was  fighting the legal battles, and he was winning   small case after small case in the appellate  courts. So, when he finally did get to the Supreme   Court, on the big civil rights question for black  people, he was able to win because he had that   wide support of underlying small case law  that all led up to that big win in the courts.  

And that's what we need to do in family rights  and parental rights. We need to convince more   parents that they should stand up and fight for  their rights in the courts. And we need to get a   lot of these small wins in the appellate courts  that support the fact that we have civil rights   that deserve to be protected. And then we need  to push it all the way to the Supreme Court,   if necessary, to get that sea change and  understanding in our nation that says parents   have rights, they're individual rights, they  don't depend on marriage, and the courts cannot   deprive them of their rights simply because  they get divorced or choose never to marry.