Opening Statement

Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr. for the Hearing on:
“Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Relating to Parental Rights”
Before the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice

Tuesday, September 9, 2014, at 2:00 p.m.
2141 Rayburn House Office Building

     Without question, support for the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children cuts across ideological and party lines. And, the protection of parental rights under the Constitution has not been questioned at any time by the Supreme Court. While admittedly not among the Constitution’s enumerated rights, parental rights are without a doubt core rights protected by the Due Process Clause. So as we consider whether to amend the Constitution to add a parental rights provision, we should first ask what is the problem that requires amending the text of the Constitution?

     As I just noted, the Supreme Court has long recognized that the right of otherwise fit parents to make decisions regarding their children’s upbringing has a constitutional dimension. Over the last 90 years, the Court has issued numerous decisions that repeatedly reaffirmed the fundamental nature of a fit parent’s right to make decisions concerning a child’s upbringing. Here is just a partial list of those decisions: Meyer v. Nebraska, Pierce v. Society of Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, Washington v. Glucksburg, and Santosky v. Kramer. And, I reject the argument made by some that the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Troxel v. Granville somehow weakened the Constitution’s protection for parental rights.

     In Troxel, the Court correctly ruled that an overly broad state law – that permitted any person to petition a court for visitation rights at any time, and that required the court to grant such petition if visitation was in the “best interests of the child” – was unconstitutional as applied.

     So again, I ask what is the problem that needs to be fixed by a constitutional amendment?

     In addition to avoiding fixing nonexistent problems, we must also be mindful of the harmful effects presented by this proposed constitutional amendment. For example, section 2 of the proposed amendment would, among other things, specify that  the constitutionally guaranteed parental right to direct a child’s education includes “the right to make reasonable choices within public schools for one’s child.”

     This broad and vague language has the potential to undermine public education by subjecting to constitutional scrutiny public school curriculums, courses, and even individual assignments to the very wide variety of moral and other values of the parents of public school students. Under this language, public schools could simply become unmanageable, effectively ending public education’s mission to give all Americans a basic education and to foster a common community out of our diverse society.

     Finally, I have to note that with less than three legislative weeks before another major recess, there are other critical priorities that have not had the benefit of a hearing before this Committee. For example, we could be holding a hearing on the civil rights, civil liberties, and law enforcement implications of the tragic events last month in Ferguson, Missouri.  All of these issues fall within the Judiciary Committee’s jurisdiction.

     The shooting of Michael Brown raises serious questions about racial profiling by police and about the possibility of a pattern or practice of police misconduct by the Ferguson Police Department, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 14141. The public protests over the shooting and the police response to the protests raise questions about the constitutional rights to free speech and peaceful assembly as well as concerns about the militarization of police departments.

     Additionally, comprehensive immigration reform remains to be done, notwithstanding the fact that millions of decent, hardworking people have remained in the shadows for far too long.  Moreover, the Congressional Budget Office tells us we could reduce our deficit by $900 billion over 20 years by enacting such a bill.

     Also, I am not aware of a single hearing being held on the problem of crushing student loan debt – totaling $1.1 trillion – and whether consumer bankruptcy law can help give deserving debtors relief from what can be a life-long burden.

     These issues are worth the committee’s time, and I hope that at the end of today’s hearing, we can agree on times for holding hearings on these other issues.