1. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment I, states that the "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
2. Under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a "state's compelling interest" test was established by Congress.
3. The state now has the power to establish the prohibition of certain religious practices.
1. The U.S. Constitution, Amendment IX, states that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall NOT be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Parental rights are not enumerated in the Constitution.
2. The Parental Rights and Responsibilities Act establishes a "state's compelling interest" test to determine the validity of parental rights claims.
3. Constitutional protection of parental rights as unenumerated rights is null and void if PRRA passes, because, as in the case of the RFRA, the PRRA will have established a criteria for prohibition of parental rights.
1. There is no constitutional provision for mandating government education.
2. By passing the Restoring Local Schools Act, Congress reduces the educational bureaucracy that it established through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1969/Improving America's Schools Act of 1994/GOALS 2000 -- Educate America Act to a process of individualized education and training financed through tax credits from the General Fund and managed through a charter/community center school concept, which will deliver human services and workforce training to meet national/international market standards.
3. Business "partnerships" and co-ownership of community schools/training facilities will determine curriculum outcomes to match business needs.
4. There will be no establishment or restoration of "local schools", but the establishment of local control of the populace will guarantee a trained workforce for full employment, bypassing constitutional rights altogether; thus, establishing a new form of government and social structure.
1. Religious rights restrictions can include allowing children to protest receiving religious training from their parents' choice of church or synagogue. Would it be within the "state's compelling interest" to force the child to receive religious training when the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child maintains that this would violate a child's right? Or, would it be more likely that the "state's compelling interest" would be answerable to the UN treaty to uphold the child's right to determine the nature, if any, of the religious training the child would consent to receive?
2. Would it be within the "state's compelling interest" to allow parents to educate and discipline their children to a standard to meet a funding, legal, or emergency initiative standard (as in those proposed when the United States found itself behind in the "space race" of the 1960's, or now under GOALS 2000/Governor's Summit workforce initiative)? Under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the "compelling interest" standard would work against parents because the state's "compelling interest" would be to meet the dictates of the UN treaty!
3. The outcomes of the enactment of legislation such as the Restoring Local Schools Act would provide exactly the framework for delivering the provisions called for in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. With the community center concept implemented by the dissolution of the present educational establishment, the ability for children to receive educational, workforce training, medical, nutritional, safety, social, mental health, and daycare/nightcare services to meet their individual needs will be provided by the government. Thus, the liberation of the child is accomplished just as the UN Treaty demands!
It is a fact that the United Nations treaties supersede federal and
state law and are considered on a par with our Constitution. Given
the proposed shredding of our constitutional rights under the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, the Parental Rights and Responsibilities
Act, and the Restoring Local Schools Act, as internationally
renowned constitutional expert Dr. Charles E. Rice of Notre Dame Law
School stated, concerning just the Parental Rights and Responsibilities
Act, these laws are "imprudent and dangerous."
Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease?