Mike Farris:
I'll be the first to tell you that current Supreme Court doctrine isn’t perfect—far from it. But even in this imperfect arena, all of our First Amendment liberties—religion, press, speech, and so on—are considered “fundamental rights.” As I explained last time, this is the same as “inalienable”—unable to be taken away.
Government does create, or grant, some rights—and these kinds of rights can be taken away. But fundamental rights are not like this. The overwhelming view, even in the Supreme Court, is that a fundamental right is not a species of right that may be eliminated by government whim.
Yes, it’s true that fundamental rights are not absolute. To state an extreme example, one may not exercise one’s freedom of religion to perform a human sacrifice. (This is clearly because one of the fundamental rights—freedom of religion—cannot trump another fundamental right—the right to life.) But freedom of religion itself is beyond the power of government to eradicate entirely.
That’s why the first section of the Parental Rights Amendment reads: “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.” It’s because we want the Constitution to state, in black and white, that parents have the fundamental, inalienable, God-given, government-protected right to raise and teach their children. I’m Mike Farris.
