An Unlikely Aid in Helping You Evaluate State Legislative Candidates
Jul 18, 2024 by David Fowler
The rank-and-file pro-family people in Tennessee need a little truth about those in our state legislature who purport to lead them, especially since many incumbents are touting their pro-family bona fides. What follows should be helpful to any who care about their state Representative or Senator unnecessarily inviting the federal government to intrude on state domestic policy issues.
Key Legislators Unnecessarily Defer to the Federal Government on Parental Rights
During the recently completed legislative session, I communicated with numerous legislators, including William Lamberth and Jeremy Faison, the House Republican Leader and Caucus Chair, respectively, about a serious concern I had with the potential for federal government intrusion on state parental rights in a bill sponsored by Faison and Senator Farrell Haile.
Others communicated this concern to Senate Republican Leader Jack Johnson. I also communicated it to Senator Haile.
Finally, I communicated the concern, in writing, along with written justifications for it, to the Republican members of the standing committees in the House and Senate that would vote on whether the bill should be sent to the House and Senate floors, respectively, for a vote by all legislators.
Why My Concern for Federal Government Intrusion into Parental Rights?
The concern arose out of the fact the bill expressly subjected the rights of parents in Tennessee to the U.S. Constitution.
The bill, as filed by Faison and Haile, said the parental rights being acknowledged in Tennessee’s law were “in addition to the protections provided under … the federal constitution.”
I think the average person would read that to mean the U.S. Constitution also provides at least certain kinds of rights to parents.
That sounds nice—like getting two scoops of parental-rights flavored ice cream in one legislative cone—but the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, a person who knows this would also know that a state law on parental rights in violation of the U.S. Constitution would be unconstitutional.
Why did I see this as a problem?
Given the infatuation among federal courts with redefining what it means to be human and made male and female—our bodies must not mean anything or the Supreme Court could not have redefined the marital relationship and transgenderism wouldn’t be accommodated—I thought it was a mistake to statutorily concede on the front end of any potential litigation over parental rights that the federal constitution applied.
Moreover, a person who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution should know that the U.S. Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” only when its provisions apply.
With that in mind, I double dog dare you to find the word “parent” or any variation thereof in the Constitution. It isn’t there, and therefore it doesn’t apply. The U.S. Constitution left domestic family issues to the states!
Therefore, I saw no reason to agree, up front, that the U.S. Constitution applies to the rights of parents in Tennessee when that is not what the supremacy clause requires.
If the federal constitution applies, it applies without having to put it in the statute. Being a real conservative, I thought Tennessee’s legislators should force an increasingly liberal federal government and Department of Justice to prove the U.S. Constitution applies to parental rights, not concede to its applicability.
A few years ago, we had enough leaders in the legislature who would have understood what I was saying, eliminated the reference to the federal constitution, and eliminated the possible problem. Not now.
The most generous thing I can say about any of the current legislative leaders I’ve mentioned is they didn’t take what I said seriously.
Faison and Lamberth never responded.
Senator Haile had no interest in me explaining to him the problem inviting the federal government to substitute its understanding of parental rights for ours. His interest extended only to a conversation in his waiting area that lasted maybe five minutes. He even admitted the issue was over his head.
The language subordinating the state's duty to protect the family to the federal government's Understanding of the family had to stay in the bill.
Opening the Door to Congressional Interference in Parent-Child Relations
I also tried to explain to these legislators that parental rights could only be subject to the “federal constitution” if the 14th Amendment applies. It’s the provision in the Constitution that says, “No state shall.”
If the 14th Amendment applies, Congress has the power to enact legislation prohibiting state parental rights laws that it thinks violate the 14th Amendment.
Just so you know I’m not making this up, let me quote Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:
I think a legislator who understands the Constitution would readily interpret this provision as follows: If Congress thinks a state law violates the 14th Amendment, it can enact legislation to enforce what the 14th Amendment requires and prohibit state laws that violate its requirements.
And any dispute as to whether state or federal law controls parental rights would be decided by federal judges, many of whom have accepted transgender ideology!
Yet, these legislators suspended their power of judgment to take the word of a lawyer from the national organization that drafted the bill and was pushing it and who testified to the House subcommittee that referring to the federal constitution didn’t implicate Section 5 that you just read.
Now maybe that lawyer-lobbyist is incompetent or maybe he lied in order to get his employer’s bill passed, but you would hope that a conscientious legislator with the information I just gave you would have probed that lawyer’s answer at least a little bit.
Nope.
Vindication of My Concern Comes in Time to Help You Vote
This week the Republican Party changed the provision in its platform regarding abortion. The new provision states that the 14th Amendment applies to the abortion, another state domestic issue like parental rights.
Note what the president of the national pro-life Susan B. Anthony Fund, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said about the 14th Amendment:
She is right, because she can read and understand Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
But the language of Section 5 didn’t seem to matter to any of these legislators.
While the legislators I’ve mentioned may not represent you, this information may prove helpful as you evaluate legislative candidates that you can vote for and that these legislators are endorsing.
You should also know that endorsements are the way those in leadership curry favor with potential new members. They want those members to vote for them as their leaders.
So, I pray those they may be endorsing, if elected, will not fail you in the way these leaders did.[i]
Key Legislators Unnecessarily Defer to the Federal Government on Parental Rights
During the recently completed legislative session, I communicated with numerous legislators, including William Lamberth and Jeremy Faison, the House Republican Leader and Caucus Chair, respectively, about a serious concern I had with the potential for federal government intrusion on state parental rights in a bill sponsored by Faison and Senator Farrell Haile.
Others communicated this concern to Senate Republican Leader Jack Johnson. I also communicated it to Senator Haile.
Finally, I communicated the concern, in writing, along with written justifications for it, to the Republican members of the standing committees in the House and Senate that would vote on whether the bill should be sent to the House and Senate floors, respectively, for a vote by all legislators.
Why My Concern for Federal Government Intrusion into Parental Rights?
The concern arose out of the fact the bill expressly subjected the rights of parents in Tennessee to the U.S. Constitution.
The bill, as filed by Faison and Haile, said the parental rights being acknowledged in Tennessee’s law were “in addition to the protections provided under … the federal constitution.”
I think the average person would read that to mean the U.S. Constitution also provides at least certain kinds of rights to parents.
That sounds nice—like getting two scoops of parental-rights flavored ice cream in one legislative cone—but the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Therefore, a person who knows this would also know that a state law on parental rights in violation of the U.S. Constitution would be unconstitutional.
Why did I see this as a problem?
Given the infatuation among federal courts with redefining what it means to be human and made male and female—our bodies must not mean anything or the Supreme Court could not have redefined the marital relationship and transgenderism wouldn’t be accommodated—I thought it was a mistake to statutorily concede on the front end of any potential litigation over parental rights that the federal constitution applied.
Moreover, a person who has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution should know that the U.S. Constitution is the “supreme law of the land” only when its provisions apply.
With that in mind, I double dog dare you to find the word “parent” or any variation thereof in the Constitution. It isn’t there, and therefore it doesn’t apply. The U.S. Constitution left domestic family issues to the states!
Therefore, I saw no reason to agree, up front, that the U.S. Constitution applies to the rights of parents in Tennessee when that is not what the supremacy clause requires.
If the federal constitution applies, it applies without having to put it in the statute. Being a real conservative, I thought Tennessee’s legislators should force an increasingly liberal federal government and Department of Justice to prove the U.S. Constitution applies to parental rights, not concede to its applicability.
A few years ago, we had enough leaders in the legislature who would have understood what I was saying, eliminated the reference to the federal constitution, and eliminated the possible problem. Not now.
The most generous thing I can say about any of the current legislative leaders I’ve mentioned is they didn’t take what I said seriously.
Faison and Lamberth never responded.
Senator Haile had no interest in me explaining to him the problem inviting the federal government to substitute its understanding of parental rights for ours. His interest extended only to a conversation in his waiting area that lasted maybe five minutes. He even admitted the issue was over his head.
The language subordinating the state's duty to protect the family to the federal government's Understanding of the family had to stay in the bill.
Opening the Door to Congressional Interference in Parent-Child Relations
I also tried to explain to these legislators that parental rights could only be subject to the “federal constitution” if the 14th Amendment applies. It’s the provision in the Constitution that says, “No state shall.”
If the 14th Amendment applies, Congress has the power to enact legislation prohibiting state parental rights laws that it thinks violate the 14th Amendment.
Just so you know I’m not making this up, let me quote Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
I think a legislator who understands the Constitution would readily interpret this provision as follows: If Congress thinks a state law violates the 14th Amendment, it can enact legislation to enforce what the 14th Amendment requires and prohibit state laws that violate its requirements.
And any dispute as to whether state or federal law controls parental rights would be decided by federal judges, many of whom have accepted transgender ideology!
Yet, these legislators suspended their power of judgment to take the word of a lawyer from the national organization that drafted the bill and was pushing it and who testified to the House subcommittee that referring to the federal constitution didn’t implicate Section 5 that you just read.
Now maybe that lawyer-lobbyist is incompetent or maybe he lied in order to get his employer’s bill passed, but you would hope that a conscientious legislator with the information I just gave you would have probed that lawyer’s answer at least a little bit.
Nope.
Vindication of My Concern Comes in Time to Help You Vote
This week the Republican Party changed the provision in its platform regarding abortion. The new provision states that the 14th Amendment applies to the abortion, another state domestic issue like parental rights.
Note what the president of the national pro-life Susan B. Anthony Fund, Marjorie Dannenfelser, said about the 14th Amendment:
“It is important that the G.O.P. reaffirmed its commitment to protect unborn life today through the 14th Amendment. Under this amendment it is Congress that enacts and enforces its provisions.” (emphasis supplied)
She is right, because she can read and understand Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
But the language of Section 5 didn’t seem to matter to any of these legislators.
While the legislators I’ve mentioned may not represent you, this information may prove helpful as you evaluate legislative candidates that you can vote for and that these legislators are endorsing.
You should also know that endorsements are the way those in leadership curry favor with potential new members. They want those members to vote for them as their leaders.
So, I pray those they may be endorsing, if elected, will not fail you in the way these leaders did.[i]
[i] At the last minute, on the House Floor, Representative Chris Todd finally got what I’d been saying for weeks and insisted on an amendment to remove the bill’s reference to the federal constitution. To quell any trouble a contested amendment would create on the floor, leadership in the House and Senate acquiesced to the amendment. The dogged determination of the Republican leaders on this bill to submit parental rights to a confused federal judiciary and a liberal Congress was perhaps the most confounding thing I’ve witnessed in 30 years at the Capitol.
