Why isn't Ron Paul supporting the Parental Rights Amendment?

Parental control, or lack thereof especially in education is traditionally a state's rights issue.

There is nothing federal in what you should or shouldn't be allowed to do with your children, your education, your schooling system. That's how it always should have been in my opinion.

I question the wisdom of those who set up a federally funded Department of Education as that sounds like a military outfit.

Why in the high heavens do we have a military focused outfit, in charge of something as local and supposedly free as education? Why indeed

very fishy

legislation that is coming out, this bill is probably designed to do the exact opposite of what the title says.

from parental rights dot org. Why are they pushing this if as someone below said it will actually undermine parental rights? Not sure which way to go on this one? Anyone have any further info on this?

have to gain from this amendment? Why would he put the second part in there?

this proposed amendment to the Constitution. Section 2 of it is a practical magic carpet that:

1. Acknowledges and establishes a Constitutional right (for the leviathan state) to interfere with and assume control over the raising and education of children, and

2. Uses the judicially well-lubricated phrase of "governmental interest" that is:
a. of the highest interest (without defining what that is......having the
practical meaning of whatever congress wants it to mean and
whatever 5 members of the supreme court will accept)
b. not otherwise served. (not otherwise served by whom?)

Although the first section of the proposed amendment acknowledges a "fundamental right" for parents to raise and educate their children, the next section sets forth a loosely worded principle by which the statement or principle in Section 1 can (and will) be rendered ineffective. If it is truly the purpose of the proposed amendment, to acknowledge the fundamental rights of parents and protect those rights from government interference, then get rid of Section 2 and take away any possibility of the government's interference with that fundamental right acknowledged in Section 1. Otherwise, it's just a congressional and judicially-craftable mechanism by which the government will obtain some kind of constitutionally-official sanction in order to render obsolete those relatively few rights that parents still have in the raising and education of their offspring.

One can recall the original intent of those who insisted upon the inclusion of the 2nd amendment (just to pick one of many examples) and the congressional and judicial deterioration that amendment has experienced over the years......because someone thought it wise to include a phrase referencing a "state militia" as one example of why the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed. With the operation of time and the nature of the leviathan state, look what happened. The "state militia" example was seized upon (it still is today) and treated as the *only* reason why such a right could not be infringed and precisely the vehicle by which the right has been, and is being, and will continue to be infringed.

May heaven help parents (and children) if this monstrosity, as it stands written, finds its way into the text of the U.S. Constitution.
_________________________________________
"An economy built on fiat money is a society on its way to ashes."

of US Congress?

we need many of these retards on our side as there are too few of us who know what's going on. So please unretardize these zombies and have at least some of them understand something.

if this CRC passes!!!!! Any social workers out there?? You may want to look into another line of work................God help us!!!!

I'm sure Paul WILL be in support (if not already)

PS. This little item (CRC) is also straight out of the UN !!