TOOL OF THE DAY: 14th Amendment cannot be abridged by legislators

CATEGORY: Family Law Statutory

When you are trying to understand where and who changes the rules in family court decisions, it can seem like you are thrown into a circle of power. The judges will tell you that your legislator makes the rules. And the legislators will tell you that the judges have discretion. So where does the power really lie?

One might make you think that there is a power struggle to be decided here. But that’s not the case really. Things were settled long ago.

In fact, you might be surprised to know (a little phrase the attorneys like using) that the states themselves were sent the 14th amendment after Congress passed it through and asked if they wanted to ratify it. The president at the time didn’t exactly agree with it and wanted to make sure the states understood this. The states ratified the restrictions that the 14th amendment placed on them and this was certified by Secretary of State William Seward on July 28, 1868.

The 14th amendment was passed by Congress in June of 1866 and can be found in volume 14, page 358 in the book of statutes called “United States Statutes at Large.”

The reason I say “the states ratified the restrictions that the 14th amendment placed on them” is because their agreement to protect your rights means that they knew that they would have to institute restrictions on violating these rights. Hence applying due process.

  • The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution considered : the right to pursue any lawful trade or avocation, without other restraint than such as equally affects all persons, is one of the privileges of citizens of the United States which can not be abridged by state legislation / dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Field, Mr. Justice Bradley, and Mr. Justice Swayne, of U.S. Supreme Court, in the New Orleans slaughter-house cases.”*

A good way to start your opening statement if the statutes in your state continue to lack the proper due process protections in them would be to list the main fundamental parental rights and a statement something like:

I am aware that this court may believe that the statutes (you don’t need to list them in your opener but make sure that you are prepared to address them at an instant that cover best interest, appointing GALs, appointing court facilitators, ordering custody evaluations, psych evaluations, etc.) are what determine whether or not I have these rights. However, I believe that all of my rights are privileges that I have as a citizen of the United States which cannot be abridged by state legislation without proper due process. (Then you will need to be prepared to make a brief statement on what the proper due process is. See my posts on strict scrutiny and due process violations.)

Now when you are faced with the argument that the statutes authorized the court to violate your parental rights you can confidently object and present your argument to the contrary.


You can learn more about how to reason through your rights and protect your rights in our books and courses. Click at the top on Store and you will find the books and training tabs. The book teaches you your rights and the training courses teach you how to argue them like I demonstrated above.]

Be sure to subscribe to our website and receive notices when the new Daily Tool is posted each day. Subscribe here: SUBSCRIBE

NEW Family Rights Wiki pages with more tools and information here:


Come back to this blog every day this year and you will find another valuable tool posted to help you protect your family, your hard-earned money, and your ability to continue to pursue your life dreams with your child by your side.

Strategic Parental Rights Strategist, Instructor, Constitutional Scholar, and Author

Divorce Solutions and Child Custody Solutions

Co-author “Not in the Child’s Best Interest” (Book on parental rights and children’s rights)

Co-author “Protecting Parent-Child Bonds: 28th Amendment” (Book includes guide for legislators)


Twitter: (@fixfamilycourts)




Disclaimer: I am NOT an attorney or a lawyer. I do NOT practice law in any federal or State court system. Any information provided by me to you, regardless of how specific, is NOT intended to be legal advice under any state or federal law. I provide research, written strategies, and non-professional personal opinions on the Constitution and State laws as free exchange of politically important information that also serves an important public need and interest allowed under the First Amendment. You are highly encouraged to engage an attorney in your State to help you with the specifics of your legal issues and the law in your State. If you are a pro se litigant then you bear all and full responsibility for understanding the law in your state and acting under the law in your state. Nothing you receive from me is intended to be a “legal” document for purposes of any type of filing in any court. You are free to use my words for your personal non-commercial benefit, or as an aide in petitioning your government for redress of perceived wrongs, if properly cited where appropriate. YOU TAKE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LEGAL ACTIONS YOU PURSUE AND THE RESULTS THAT YOU GET. I BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR RESULTS. MY OPINIONS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN MY PERSONAL NON-PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS OR BELIEFS. I MAKE NO CLAIMS OF LEGAL COMPETENCY IN THE LAW UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT STANDARD OF COMPETENCY IN THE LAW.


The information provided above is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney. You should consult an attorney regarding your rights under the law.