The way this proposal was written (and hence how it was conceived), to me, demonstrates the fundamental lack of understanding today as to the spirit and intent of the constitution and bill of rights. This proposal starts with the assumption government can do what it wants and sets out to define exceptions and by taking this approach, as the doctor noted, it actually gives government that very power. As he also said, parental rights should be argued as part of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, or maybe manifest destiny. By framing it as an exemption to blanket state control it effectively negates the existence of the former. We have moved away from the idea of inherent rights and into the realm of government-provided rights which are in fact privileges, not rights. Rights are not a list of things government owes its citizens, not carrots offered for good behavior, rights are a list of things in which government may not interfere.
The way this proposal was written (and hence how it was conceived), to me, demonstrates the fundamental lack of understanding today as to the spirit and intent of the constitution and bill of rights. This proposal starts with the assumption government can do what it wants and sets out to define exceptions and by taking this approach, as the doctor noted, it actually gives government that very power.
As he also said, parental rights should be argued as part of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, or maybe manifest destiny. By framing it as an exemption to blanket state control it effectively negates the existence of the former.
We have moved away from the idea of inherent rights and into the realm of government-provided rights which are in fact privileges, not rights. Rights are not a list of things government owes its citizens, not carrots offered for good behavior, rights are a list of things in which government may not interfere.
Thank you for this! I've been screaming that this is a Trojan Horse! This is dangerous and puts other rights into jeopardy.