Friday, November 04, 2005

Parenthood Declared Unconstitutional...

Mr.Atos

If anything dare jolt America to recognize the importance of the moral integrity of it's courts, and those judges and justices that assemble the dendrils of the Judicial Branch, it is a plague of court rulings that fundamentally undermine the fabric of life, liberty, and property.

In a recent post,
The Anchoress directs readers to Flopping Aces and the latest ruling of The Ninth Circuit Court.

The ruling as authored by Judge Stephen Reinhardt declares:


“…there is no fundamental right of parents to be the exclusive provider of information regarding sexual matters to their children, either independent of their right to direct the upbringing and education of their children or encompassed by it. We also hold that parents have no due process or privacy right to override the determinations of public schools as to the information to which their children will be exposed while enrolled as students. Finally, we hold that the defendants’ actions were rationally related to a legitimate state purpose.
[…]In summary, we hold that there is no free-standing fundamental right of parents “to control the upbringing of their children by introducing them to matters of and relating to sex in accordance with their personal and religious values and beliefs” and that the asserted right is not encompassed by any other fundamental right. In doing so, we do not quarrel with the parents’ right to inform and advise their children about the subject of sex as they see fit. We conclude only that the parents are possessed of no constitutional right to prevent the public schools from providing information on that subject to their students in any forum or manner they select.” (emphasis added)
The honorable Judge Reinhardt concludes that parents are posessed of no constitutional right to prevent schools from indoctrinating their children in any forum or manner they select. And yet, this man is no doubt affiliated with with the body of thinking that does find - where it does not exist - a fundamental right to abort unborn children, ban firearms, forbid religion, and restrict political speech, all in direct contradiction of the actual words of the United States Constitution. He dictates that there is, no free-standing fundamental right of parents to control the upbringing of their children, while denying the most fundamental nature of that very right as manifested in natural law.

We have seen this before when Judge Richard Kramer struck down a California law that limited marriage to "a man and a woman." dictating there to be "no rational basis exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners..." As I noted in a previous post...
Of Nuts and Bolts,

Ignoring for an instant the historic condition of unification, which in itself constitutes rational or logical establishment of a cultural definition, the natural mechanism of human reproduction is indeed a rational basis for a concept of existence that must be acknowledged by law. Rationality being consistent with or based on reason. Reasoning or capable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner is another way to describe logic. Logic can be defined as principles based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions. Mathematically speaking it is the capability of being a quotient of integers. The sum of 1 and 1 equals 2. Likewise, one male and one female (their sperm and an egg, respectively) begets a child. Is this a preferential condition? No! Preference, spirituality, and emotion has nothing to do with logic. The principles have been established through observation, as fact. A narrow consensus to the contrary will not change the fact.
Yet facts seem wholely subservient to progressive whim as dictated by too many State and Federal Courts. Law has thus become, by the leave of unelected and unaccountable judicial despots, the manifestation of projected impulse that is anything but the product of legislative principle, conceptual prerequisite, nor even observable reality. As further noted,

Law is not invented as a matter of preference, but rather is based in premise on nature and the fundamental conditions of existence. It is not arguable that as a fact, humanity has exactly two aspects... the Man (Male) and the Woman (Female). The unification of the two aspects of humanity creates a balance (much the same way that the Taoists consider the universe to be symmetrical oriented by Yin andYang).The concept of unified balance creating a whole is an ancient principle that stretches back throughout 6000 years of known human history and likely beyond and has been exorably associated with the concept of Marriage (again, the balanced unification of humanity). With the creation of the first true modern democracy, the Constitutional Republic of the United States, the recognition of natural (inalienable) rights of Man (truncated term: Mankind, to be understood as man and women) were codified. Note that they were CODIFIED as existing by nature of existence and NOT defined as men do not posess the mandate to manifest the definition of freedom for others. It must be acknowledged by men and governments as a natural state of being of the individual by virtue of his and her existence. The Bill of Rights did just that and one's birth into this Republic and acceptance of citizenship is the promise that a citizen will acknowledge and maintain these principles accordingly. Birth being the key term at this point in the discussion, we can acknowledge that birth is the event at which existence is understood by the US Constitution. This is an arguable point to be sure, but for the sake of discussion, this threshold will suffice. Birth is a natural culmination of conception. And conception is the natural consequence of one action... the unification of a man and a women. Marriage, therefore, is the natural precept to the concept of inalienable rights. The accepted definition of Marriage, is the ideal condition of natural human existence. Marriage, therefore, is inalienably the unification of one man and one women with the express potential of propagating the human race in a free and natural manner.
But, propagating the human race would seem to have become a State program subject to mitigation or any other programmatic or political necessity, by the standards used to achieve these decisions for the benefit of the State alone.

Just as individuals exist in a state of being, endowed by their creator, so too are children endowed by their creators - their parents, who maintain complete responsibility for their existence until such time as that person becomes a legal citizen, able to assume the responsibilities of its own existence among civilized persons. The interest, benefit, and consequence is their’s alone to behold. Heinlein made the observation that citizenship rests on the theory of paired duality: "Authority and responsibility must be equal… else a balancing takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal potential." For the State to assume authority in absence of responsibility results in a siphoning of individual sovereignty away from its object, to an entity that otherwise has no objective definition and no inherent interest beneath itself. The State is afterall an abstraction; being in essence, nothing more or less than a collective manifestation of distinct entities united by a common conceptual purpose. Yet, when it is invested with absolute authority, it becomes a means to its own ends. It alone is the entity of interest and preservation. The individual retains ultimate responsibility by means of inevitable consequence, while being increasingly insolated from the authority to render fundamental choices effecting outcomes. Men become livestock; bred, fed, used and dispensed with according to the abstract interest.

Undermine the first (marriage), then the next (parenthood) in principle and law, and we have achieved the full negation of family. The collective authority assumes the role of creator and existence is endowed by leave of the State. The notion of the inalienable being of all individuals by means of their very existence is forfeit. The Collective becomes fully institutionalized as the provider of life and guarantor of nothing. In that case, the village in the form of the State will become the parent and absolute guardian from cradle where it confiscated you to the grave where it directed you...

... if one makes it out of the womb alive?


And we the people were never asked our opinion when forced to consider these opinions of two men, absolute.

1 comment:

olga said...

well, Judge Reinhardt is married to the head of California ACLU, that explains his perception of the world and also the reasoning behind his decision, for his decision reminds me of the Soviet school system: my parents had no say on what ideology or 'morals' I was taught at school and had to spend the rest of the time undoing the damage...Of course, we did not have private or parochial schools at that time... Now, I would not be surprised if the enrollment in private and parochial schools skyrockets... If I had a kid, I would have slaved for the private school tuition to ensure my kid is taught the right values and morals...