General Government

Re: 2008 House Joint Resolution NN (Establish parents rights in the Constitution )

bugman — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:09:38 GMT

perhaps we should establish government non-intervention in the constitution. curbing the power of government as opposed to curbing the rights of the people.

Re: Not True!

mountains — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:56:28 GMT

Absolutely true!

Re: family court

mountains — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:55:45 GMT

I allowed my ex husband to take my children out of state while separated, but still married. After 3 months, 2000 miles away, he filed for divorce, sole custody, and a restraining order, so I could not take them back out of state. Without money, I barely attended court. He was awarded all, effectively ending almost all parental rights in practical terms. On top of that, I was ordered to pay child support, adding injustice to injustice. Some states have adopted the view that unless proven unfit, parents will always be awarded joint custody. Not a perfect solution, but better than what happened to me.

However, the HJR 16 is not about one parent against another, but rather parents fighting the over-involvement of the government. Many citizens have never known anyting else and cannot imagine a life anymore, where parents fully govern their children's lives. Homeschoolers are a large group of people within the United States, who still believe not only in the obligation, but also the right to self-govern their families. I believe there are about 1 million home schoolers in the U.S. This bill does not attack or counter the right and responsibility of the government to help protect children from being abused and neglected and should be voted into law.

Handling of Discharge Violated Michigan Constitution and House Rules?

Anonymous Citizen — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 13:48:34 GMT

As Speaker of the House, Rep. Dillon was almost certainly aware of or involved in the unconstitutional handling of Rep. Stahl's motion to discharge HJR-NN, a joint resolution to put before the voters a parent's rights amendment. Rather than putting the motion before the entire House, as required by the Michigan Constitution, Dillon allowed the Judiciary committee to kill Representative Stahl's motion to discharge HJR-NN, violating both Michigan's Constitution and Michigan House Rules. " Rep. Stahl moved that the Committee on Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of House Joint Resolution NN." Michigan's constitution, covering motions to discharge from committee, reads in part: "Each house, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, shall choose its own officers and determine the rules of its proceedings, but shall not adopt any rule that will prevent a majority of the members elected thereto and serving therein from discharging a committee from the further consideration of any measure ..." Michigan House Rules are constitutionally appropriate, providing under Rule 42 for a vote to discharge among "a majority of the Members elected to and serving in the House": "(3) Nothing in these rules shall prevent a majority of the Members elected to and serving in the House from discharging a committee from further consideration of any measure. (See Const 1963, Art 4 § 16) A notice of one session day shall be given of a motion to discharge any such committee, the notice to be in writing and entered upon the House Journal. If a committee of the House is discharged from further consideration of a bill, the bill shall be placed on the order of Second Reading." And further for motions to discharge must be handled each session under Rule 58: "Always in Order; Not Debatable. Rule 58. (1) The following motions are not debatable: (a) Adjourn; (b) Call of the House; ..... (b) Discharge a committee; ...." Yet the only responsive action was a vote in the committee that is being discharged to postpone action within that committee itself for one day. "9/9/2008 HJ 72 Pg. 2115 motion to discharge committee postponed for day" The vote on the motion to discharge within the Judiciary Committee itself was irrelevant to the motion to discharge, and it violated both Michigan House Rules and Michigan's Constitution.

ensure rights of parents

gambemar — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:09:07 GMT

The Constitution may allude to parental protections; the Revised School Code may actually define a parent's rights and "natural and fundamental", however, school districts have found a volume of loopholes to eliminate parents from a child's educational experience. Parents are useful to schools when they carpool, bake cookies, and rubberstamp spending. It's time we got something back for our investments. We also have the right to self expression and due process and school districts have found ways around those constitutionally protected activities as well. The 6th Ciruit court recently ruled that cps referrals, juvenile court referreals, and truancy referrals made by public schools and their representatives on parents who have the audacity to pursue their protected rights via advocacy may be guilty of a "chilling of constitutional rights protected by the first and fourteenth amendments". So, let's finaly put something on the books and enforce it so that parents can advocate and participate in the education of their children. Let's also not forget the tenents of IDEA and FAPE. Parents have a number of venues that are allegedly protected, but enforcement is the real problem. We need to hold public school staff and administrators accountable for acts of malicious prosecution, slander, retaliation and harrassment. Stop protecting the abusers under a veil of exemption. Let parents parent and teachers teach.....

Which Came First...

beverlytran — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:00:42 GMT

Q: Which came first, the writ or the right? A: "Qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hoc parte sequitur" Just another constitutional enigma wrapped in a political conundrum. Beverly Tran

Yeah

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:23:54 GMT

"The impulse to “enumerate” every conceivable right by constitutional amendment tends to cheapen and erode the principle" But what will these guys do all day? Maybe this is more evidence that we don't need these twits full time?????

Erosion Of Natural Rights

Anonymous Citizen — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:48:46 GMT

“Article I Sec. 23. “The enumeration in this constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Which means this parental rights business already has constitutional protection in the state. Thus, the amendment is unnecessary. The impulse to “enumerate” every conceivable right by constitutional amendment tends to cheapen and erode the principle stated in Article I, Section 23. Michigan’s Constitution, like the US Constitution is a document written to limit the scope of government, not expand it. The wording of this proposed amendment clearly states that the government does have authority that supercedes parental rights. That is not a good thing.

Not True!

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:49:51 GMT

Emergency action when their is clear and convincing evidence of harm will not be inhibited. Your objection is unfounded since the state is still allowed to remove abused children with the wording of this resolution. The resolution will require that there be clear and convincing evidence instead of hearsay and false allegations as is the family court standard now.

Non Custodial Parent / Father

Anonymous Citizen — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:36:40 GMT

As a Father who has repeatedly fought this dishonest Family Court system for equal custody I can attest to the fact that this legislation is sorely needed to protect the right of parents who are otherwise disenfranchised by our current system. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that this system is MAKING MONEY from isolating the major wage earner from their children? It is no coincidence that sole mother custody is the norm in Michigan given the fact that the State receives major federal funding based on the amount of money they are able to collect from the non-custodial parents that they create. I have never experienced a more dishonest or corrupt group of individuals than those I have dealt with at the Michigan Friend of the Court or the Michigan Family Courts. Divorce is an industry and a lot of people, the state, laywers, judges, FOC workers and others are making huge money from victimizing non custodial parents. Currently a Michigan Father has no more rights than a common felon. You have the right to remain silent but no right to access to your own children. Michigan Family Courts routinely abuse the constitutional rights of ordinary citizens to raise their children without the benefit of due process. Michigan Families need the protection of this amendment to prevent Family Courts from abusing a parents right to simply raise their children without interference from the government. If and when the government needs to step in they should have a real and convincing case, provide the protections of due process, and treat citizens in a fair and ubiased way. I'm sure that very few Fathers in Michigan can speak out in favor of the way they have been treated by the "system" in Michigan. I know my children have suffered because of the rulings of our local Family Court!

To Representative Doug Bennet

Anonymous Citizen — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:08:25 GMT

Honorable Representative Doug Bennet Michigan House District 92 You requested clarification on concrete ways that House Resolution NN would make children's lives better, examples of problems, and how this resolution would resolve it. Given this information, you indicated that you may support this resolution. Today, there is substantial evidence that Michigan family court decisions are being driven in in whole or in part by the financial implications of the court [1], rather than the application of the law and the best interests of children. Former FOC Officer Carol Rhodes described her experiences, saying "It was all about money.... We stumbled over ourselves trying to get more Title 4D cases .... I witnessed regular deception to clients that was mandated by office policy ... policies change from week to week for the profit of the agency" [2] She even talks about how her coworkers colluded with judges to intentionally and completely sever the parent child relationship for those who made trouble for what she called a "racket". This is little more than kidnapping and racketeering [3] We also see in the CSPER report that the SCAO is mishandling state dollars intended for parenting time enforcement, and state, federal, and local dollars intended to handle child support modification requests. [4] Such is their disdain for the law that most local FOC offices do not appear to even have state mandated parenting time policies [5], or state mandated makeup parenting time policies [6], and most parents who have parenting time problems find the FOC unhelpful. When a child custody decision is appealed, the Michigan Appeals court often points to MCL 722.28 [7] and says "MCL 722.28 provides that child custody orders and judgments shall be affirmed on appeal unless the trial court made “findings of fact against the great weight of evidence or committed a palpable abuse of discretion or a clear legal error on a major issue.”" [8] It is under this legal cover that all manner of questionable activities continue, including violations of law in Oakland County [9], Ingham and Jackson Counties [10], and elsewhere. Those who would thwart the interests of justice, violate the law, and harm children within Michigan's courts do so knowing that the Michigan Appeals Court will not step in to stop them, because their actions are protected under MCL 722.28. If the Constitutional Amendment proposed by House Joint Resolution NN is passed, the Michigan Court of Appeals will have jurisdiction to stop all local court actions, and all actions by any other part of the government of the State of Michigan whose procedures violate the law or otherwise harm kids. This will ensure that children and their parents are accorded the due process that the legislature of Michigan has deemed appropriate for them, and will guarantee that no law, no matter how cleverly worded, can harm children and parents by allowing local officials to ignore the laws of this state. It is for this reason that house resolution NN would take care of these specific problems, and improve the lives of children. Sincerely, Doug Dante [1] http://www.scribd.com/doc/630611/A-Quick-Summary-of-Title-IVD-Funding-and-Incentives [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M7cEi61W24 [3] http://www.scribd.com/doc/454566/Racketeering-in-Michigans-Friend-of-the-Court [4] http://www.scribd.com/doc/477791/A-Review-of-the-CSPER-Report [5] http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qo5quk45xtknti450u4bya55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-519 [6] http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(gjkkug55alvutf55woprxgaj))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-552-642 [7] http://legislature.mi.gov/(S(obn4fvjcym21p1fwvxpfll55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-722-28 [8] http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/DOCUMENTS/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20070322_C274016_42_274016.OPN.PDF [9] http://www.scribd.com/doc/362206/Oakland-County-Friend-of-the-Court-Ignores-the-Law-and-Hurts-Kids [10] http://www.scribd.com/doc/362198/Ingham-County-and-Jackon-County-Michigan-FOC-Are-Ignoring-The-Law-and-Hurting-Kids

Tenet

beverlytran — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 03:53:54 GMT

I appreciate your readership and participation in state government. It takes astute individuals to bring attention to errors in spelling as well as policy. Thank you and I hope you continue bring any future errors to public attention. Beverly Tran

No Nonsense

Anonymous Citizen — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:39:19 GMT

A commenter wrote: about this amendment that it is "redundant and useless" and that it "is absolutely guaranteed to spur litigation" When our federal tax dollars create a financial incentive for the state to separate parents and their children. Former employees are coming forward and describing their previous involvement in what amounts to Racketeering in the Michigan FOC. When, in the CSPER report, the FOC recommends that it be have the power to starve out poor young women and their babies by refusing them welfare if they aren't "cooperating" with them. Or when, in the CSPER report, saddle young men facing a false paternity judgment with the cost of paying for both sides before being allowed to talk to a judge. Or when most local FOCs simply DO NOT have parenting time policies: "Develop and recommend guidelines to be used by an office in determining whether or not parenting time has been wrongfully denied by the custodial parent" (MCL 552.519) And they DO NOT have makeup parenting time policies in full compliance with the law: "Each circuit shall establish a makeup parenting time policy under which a parent who has been wrongfully denied parenting time is able to make up the parenting time at a later date" (MCL 552.642) We have courts that effectively and openly flout the laws of the state. They hardly limit their "burdens" or "abridgments" to only those that are "in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest" and they certainly don't limit themselves to "the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest." Look at the appeals courts decisions. We review for blah blah blah. The review? Almost always affirm or a statement to the judge to consider some other factor or another, and almost never retain jurisdiction. The judge modifies her opinion slightly and nothing changes on the ground. With this amendment, the appeals courts will be able to get some control on the worst offenders, those more interested in their own pocketbooks than in justice for families.

Question for Beverly...

Anonymous Citizen — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:41:48 GMT

'If the tenants of this resolution...' Who do these 'tenants' rent from?

you know... we

Anonymous Citizen — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:53:06 GMT

STILL haven't found all the F.B.I. files that hillary kept when she was first lady... where did THOSE all go? what REALLY happened to Vince Foster? what about WHITEWATER? are they still selling drugs there?