|
|
|
|
Did you know
that as a United States citizen,
you
have a fundamental liberty interest and right as a parent to rear your child;
the Federal Constitution permits a State to interfere with this
right only to prevent harm or potential harm to the child; and
a State’s statute permitting interference must require a threshold
showing of harm to be constitutional?
Don’t take our
word, read it for yourself. The case law supporting this is extensive, and a good
place to start would be Justice O'Connor's opinion written in Troxel, et vir. v.
Granville, No. 99—138. Argued January 12, 2000–Decided June 5, 2000.
Follow the above links to the appropriate excerpts or read the opinions for yourself
at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-138.ZS.html.
|
|
Other case law and
quotes on the subject from the Troxel, et vir. v. Granville opinions.
|
|
There is a presumption that fit parents act in their
children’s best interests, Parham v. J. R.,
442 U.S. 584,
602. (Syllybus)
|
|
There is normally no reason for the
State to inject itself into the private realm of the family to further question fit
parents’ ability to make the best decisions regarding their children,
see, e.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 304
(Syllybus)
|
|
Two years later, in Pierce v. Society
of Sisters, 268
U.S. 510, 534—535 (1925), we again held that the “liberty of parents and
guardians” includes the right “to direct the upbringing and education of
children under their control.” We explained in Pierce that “[t]he
child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny
have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional
obligations.” Id., at 535. (See Opinion of Justice O'Connor) (Emphasis
added.)
|
|
The fundamental theory of liberty upon
which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to
standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers
only. The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct
his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for
additional obligations. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535
(1925) (See Opinion of Justice Souter) (Emphasis added.)
|
|
Our decision in Pierce v. Society
of Sisters, 268
U.S. 510 (1925), holds that parents have a fundamental constitutional right to rear
their children, including the right to determine who shall educate and socialize them.
(See Opinion of Justice Thomas)
|
|
More than 75 years ago, in Meyer
v. Nebraska, 262
U.S. 390, 399, 401 (1923), we held that the “liberty” protected by the Due
Process Clause includes the right of parents to “establish a home and bring up
children” and “to control the education of their own.” (See Opinion of
Justice O'Connor)
|
|
We returned to the subject in Prince
v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158
(1944), and again confirmed that there is a constitutional dimension to the right of
parents to direct the upbringing of their children. “It is cardinal with us that the
custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function
and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder.”
Id., at 166. (See Opinion of Justice O'Connor) (Emphasis added.)
|
|
In subsequent cases also, we have
recognized the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care,
custody, and control of their children. See, e.g., Stanley v. Illinois,
405 U.S. 645,
651 (1972) (See Opinion of Justice O'Connor)
|
|
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 232
(1972) (“The history and culture of Western civilization reflect a strong tradition
of parental concern for the nurture and upbringing of their children. This primary role
of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an
enduring American tradition”) (See Opinion of Justice O'Connor) (Emphasis added.)
|
|
Quilloin v. Walcott, 434 U.S. 246, 255
(1978) (“We have recognized on numerous occasions that the relationship between
parent and child is constitutionally protected”) (See Opinion of Justice O'Connor)
|
|
Parham v. J. R., 442 U.S. 584, 602
(1979) (“Our jurisprudence historically has reflected Western civilization concepts
of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have
consistently followed that course”) (See Opinion of Justice O'Connor)
|
|
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753
(1982) (discussing “[t]he fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the
care, custody, and management of their child”) (See Opinion of Justice O'Connor)
|
|
Glucksberg, supra, at
720 (“In a long line of cases, we have held that, in addition to the specific
freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, the ‘liberty’ specially protected by
the Due Process Clause includes the righ[t] … to direct the education and upbringing
of one’s children” (citing Meyer and Pierce)). (See Opinion of
Justice O'Connor)
|
|
|
|
For more cases and
statutes dealing with uniforms, parental rights and religious
exemptions click
here.
|
|
|
Strong
Supporters of
Free Speech On-Line
|
|
