Tag Archives: federal courts

Overruled: Government Invasion of Parental Rights (Video Documentary)

Obama’s Legal Right To The Presidential Office Still Being Questioned in Court

By Daniel Downs

United States Justice Foundation is pursuing a court hearing to force Obama to produce valid documents including his actual birth certificate in order to clarify his qualifications for president under Constitutional law, according to World Net Daily.

Having spent nearly $2 million dollars to prevent the courts and the general public from it, it is reasonable to assume that Obama either is not legally qualified or he hold great disdain to the general citizenry as well as great disregard for ideals of our nation’s republican form of federal democracy.

World Net Daily raised a very important point concerning the Constitutional right and necessity of proving a presidential candidates qualifications. As written,

“Did you know that John McCain had a lawsuit filed against him,
to force him to establish his citizenship (Hollander v. McCain)
during his campaign for President! After he produced evidence and
official documents, and after Congressional hearings, the U.
S., by Senate Resolution 511, John McCain was recognized as a
‘natural born citizen.’ If he had to go through these
“hoops”—why didn’t his presidential opponent have to do the
same?”

That is one of the recurring criticism of all criticism surrounding litigation to determine Obama’s citizenship and constitutional right to hold the office of president; no records of any such process of verification ever took place.

Both McCain and Obama held the office of U.S. Senator before the the election of presidency. The citizenship of both McCain and Obama were in question. Yet, as pointed out above, only McCain’s citizenship was clarified both by the federal court and the U.S. Congress.

It is still the obligation of the federal court and the U.S. Court to actually verify Obama’s citizenship.

If it is found that Obama is not qualified and therefore the Supreme Lawbreaker of the Land, what should be done about it? What punitive action should the federal court and/or Congress take toward Obama?

The FDA, Plan B, and Parental Rights

A U.S. District Court Judge in March made news by ordering the FDA to make Plan B, dubbed “the Morning After Pill”, available without a prescription to minors. Citing “political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications for decision-making” on the part of the FDA, the judge ordered that the age at which the drug is available over the counter be lowered from 18 to 17 years. In a decision not to appeal the ruling, the FDA issued the required authorization to Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Montvale, NJ, which markets the drug.

Several news stories at the time of the late-March ruling, and again when the FDA announced its authorization in late-April, addressed the debate over whether the pill promotes sexual promiscuity among teens, whether it amounts to early abortion, whether it protects a young woman’s reproductive rights, and so on.

What no one took into account, however, was the issue of parental rights. Prior to the ruling, the drug was available over the counter to women 18 and older, while those under 18 first had to first obtain a prescription. Although the court reversed this ruling based on data that the drug’s physical effects on 17-year-olds was no different than on adults, neither the judge nor the news reports seemed to consider the emotional vulnerability of minors, nor the role of parents in protecting them, when faced with so consequential a decision.

Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which we oppose for legal reasons, recognizes that persons under 18 should be accorded additional protections under the law. To make so controversial and significant a product available to minors without requiring medical or parental consent is a tremendous legal step that ought not to be ignored.

The decision over whether or not a minor should access such a drug is one which should include parents. We regret that the dialog regarding the FDA’s decision lacked this important consideration.

The proposed Parental Rights Amendment will uphold current state and federal laws which protect the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children in medical and other health-related areas. The Amendment is not expected to impact this court ruling in any way, but will continue to protect the ability of parents to speak into such major decisions in the lives of their teenaged daughters.

–by ParentalRights.org, March 28, 2009

SOURCES:
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/Story?id=7404420
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WireStory?id=7151963
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090423/ap_on_he_me/us_morning_after_pill