Welcome, be inspired, be encouraged, be equipped THNPLH Newsletter Header

April 1st, 2019 PDF Print E-mail




 It is imperative that husbands, wives, and grown children EMAIL each of the following Representatives on the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education TODAY and CALL them TOMORROW to ask them to defeat HB 1139! Tell them you do not want your homeschool statute altered in any way! This is critical!!!! Identify who you are and what district or locale you reside. 


Rep Rebecca Roeber 573-751-1456  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it  
Rep. Chuck Basye, vice-Chairman 573-751-1501  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep. Judy Morgan 573-751-4485  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep. Dottie Bailey 573-751-0562  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep Ben Baker 573-751-9781  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it  
Rep. Gretchen Bangert 573-751-5365  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep. Paula Brown 573-751-4163  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep. Phil Christofanelli 573-751-2949  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman 573-751-3751  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep. Shamed Dogan 573-751-4392  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep. Karla Eslinger 573-751-2042  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep. Raychel Proudie 573-751-0855  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep. Dan Stacy 573-751-8636  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Rep. Kathryn Swan 573-751-1443  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it  
Rep. Curtis Trent 573-751-0136  This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it



I. Our Missouri Homeschool Statute is an Excellent Statute and has Served Homeschoolers Well for More Than Three Decades! 

1. The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
does not regulate or monitor home schooling in Missouri. 
2.The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has no authority to issue regulations or guidelines concerning homeschooling. 
3. Missouri has no registration requirements for homeschoolers.
4. Parents are not required to notify the superintendent of their local public schools of their intent to begin homeschooling. 
5. Parents are not required to contact the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education when they begin homeschooling. 
6. Parents are not required to be certified to teach their children. 
7. Parents are not required to show their plan books or children’s work to anyone. 
8. Parents are not required to test their children. 
II. Extremely Dangerous to Open our Homeschool Statute

1.It is extremely dangerous to expose our homeschool statute to the scrutiny and unfavorable alteration of those who do not understand God’s law, parent’s unalienable rights, and homeschooling! State legislators who don’t understand that the State many not infringe upon God given parental rights because parents responsibilities to their children are determined by God alone. 
2. The ramifications of this action are far reaching and of great concern to FCM leaders.This lack of understanding places homeschooling in a very vulnerable position for further scrutiny and alteration.
3. And quite frankly, we don’t have enough legislators in Jefferson City who understand what the Bible and our Founding Fathers said about civil government nor do they know our Founding Principles and documents. 
III. Family Covenant Ministries Lobbyist Spent the Last Several Weeks Educating our Missouri Legislators on Home Education
1. Family Covenant Ministries registered lobbyist and attorney, past State Representative and past State Senator, homeschooling father who lives, works, and homeschooled his children in Missouri, who has worked on behalf of our homeschooling families for the past 29 years, every day of every legislative session, David Klarich, has spent the last several weeks of March sitting down with Representatives and Senators explaining to them what homeschooling is and what it is not. 
It is not like the old days before term limits, when we had a majority of Representatives and Senators that understood homeschooling and knew not to meddle with CHEF (FCM) homeschooling families. 
2. No one would know the seriousness of this situation like David Klarich, who is in Jefferson City each day of the legislative session and working with all Missouri’s Representatives and Senators as he does. David is very concerned over our vulnerability at this point in time! 
3. And, sadly, the legislators who should understand homeschooling because they are homeschool graduates, those behind both HB 857 and HB 1139, also do not understand God’s law, parent’s unalienable rights, and homeschooling. 
4.  Laws Create More Governmental Restrictions
With very few exceptions, new laws create more governmental restrictions and involvement, not freedom. Many people think they can make things better without understanding the far-reaching implications of their efforts. 
FCM Treasurers Wife, Homeschool Mom, Missouri Phyllis Schlafly Eagles board member, founding member of Jefferson County Federated Republican Women's Club, and Republican Party Activist Diane Drinkard
IV. The Vast Danger of Proposed Alterations to Our MO Homeschool Statute
1. To understand the vast danger of the proposed alterations, we must look at two very important points in our present statute side by side with the proposed alterations and explanations which we have placed in blue:
It is stated that HB 1139 would be to ease the over burdensome record keeping by giving a homeschool a choice to either keep the hours or keep the lesson planbook/diary, record of evaluations, portfolio of the child’s work, or other written credible evidence equivalent to the preceding 3 records. 
But if you look at our present statute, it is the production of a daily log that shall be a defense to any prosecution and to any charge or action for education neglect. 
The log sheet has always served as the protective barrier between the parent’s privacy- to what they are teaching their children (plan book/diary), their standard of evaluations, and the production of their children’s work- and state oversight. 
The state has no right to see, monitor or judge either our plan books or diaries, our evaluation, or our children’s work. 
I have always emphasized this point to new homeschoolers. Never show you plan book/diary, evaluations, or children’s work to anyone! Period!
This proposed alteration in HB 1139 is a dangerous infringement on our rights by granting the government the right to invade a parent’s privacy of what they are teaching their children and the children’s privacy of their work.  
As Justice Scalia stated: The State has no power to interfere with parents’ God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. 
(a) Maintain the following records: 
a. A plan book, diary, or other written record indicating subjects taught and activities engaged in; and 
b. A portfolio of samples of the child’s academic work; and 
c. A record of evaluations of the child’s academic progress; or 
d. Other written, or credible evidence equivalent to subparagraphs a., b. and c.; and
    (proposed legislation has struck the word andhere; replaced with or)  
(b) Offer at least one thousand hours of instruction, at least six hundred hours of which will be in reading, language, arts, mathematics, social studies and science or academic courses that are related to the aforementioned subject areas and consonant with the pupil’s age and ability. At least four hundred of the six hundred hours shall occur at the regular home school location. 
5. The production by a parent of a daily log showing that a home school has a course of instruction which satisfies the requirements of this section…shall be a defense to any prosecution under this section and to any charge or action for educational neglect brought pursuant to chapter 210. 
In 2009 RSMo 137.031.7 was added, “Home school education enforcement and record pursuant to this section and sections 210.167 and 211.031, shall be subject to review only by the local prosecuting attorney.” 

Since that time there have been Prosecuting Attorneys that had demanded to review the homeschool records for no other reason than the family chooses to homeschool their child/children. HB 1139 would correct this by adding, “and only if there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that there has been a violation of this section.”
If a Prosecuting Attorney demands to review homeschool records for no other reason than the family chooses to homeschool their children, then they are in violation of the law and need to be taken to task. I have personally dealt with several Prosecuting Attorneys who have done this. I simply pointed out that they are in violation of the law and cannot request this information unless there is probable cause-both assumed in law and clearly stated in the Fourth Amendment. If I have a belligerent Prosecuting Attorney, I have David Klarich deal with him. Either way it is the end of the problem. And it is only happened a few times in 32 years of our leadership. This is absolutely no reason to alter our law and risk losing the liberty we enjoy in Missouri! 
Homeschooling father, Joe Carr, statesHow are we defining "reasonable suspicion"...and who defines it? I would want to know how the agents of the school district are allowed to determine "reasonable suspicion" especially since the optional school district registration that may take away some doubts about who is being homeschooled is being removed.
The sole purpose of government is to secure the rights God has given us. 
The sole purpose of the Constitution was to limit the formation of the government. 
The only positive authority that the government holds was enumerated in the text. Personal privacy, therefore, is protected because the government may not intrude upon its enumerated authority. Furthermore, the following amendments clearly define the protection of our privacy. 
First Amendment protects privacy of beliefs.
Third Amendment protects privacy of home preventing government from demanding that soldiers be quartered in private homes.  
Fourth protects privacy of person and possessions by preventing the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. Government officials must obtain judicial approval before conducting a search through a warrant supported by probable cause.
Fifth protects the privacy of personal information through prevention of self-incrimination. 
While the Ninth Amendment says that the "enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
After a new homeschool mother saw a list of the local homeschool children, names, phone numbers, and addresses posted in her local public school office in plain public view she contacted Home School Legal Defense. The school agreed to take down the list, but said this is something they have always done. The HSLDA attorney then realized there is not a statute protecting homeschool personal identifiable data which the public school possesses. HB 1139 would correct this issue.

Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, if an agent of a public school or school board possesses any individually identifiable information about the parent,  guardian, or other person having charge, control, or custody of a child receiving instruction under subsection 2 of this section, such information shall remain confidential, shall not be posted or published in any format or medium, and shall not be disclosed to any other person or entity without the written consent of the parent, guardian, or other person having charge, control, or custody of the child. 

(3) Notwithstanding subdivisions (1) and (2) of this subsection, the individually identifiable information described in this subsection: 

(a) May be disclosed internally to another agent of a public school or school board for the sole purpose of enforcing subsection 2 of this section; 

(b) May be transmitted to the local prosecuting attorney if the agent has a reasonable suspicion of a violation of this section; and 

(c) May be disclosed for other purposes as authorized by law. 

Really? How did the public school acquire this information? Unless parents give their names, phone numbers, and addresses to the public schools, they don’t have them. 
In 32 years of leadership of the homeschooling community, I have had only a handful of issues with public school officials and Prosecuting Attorneys. Jon and I personally know and have served literally thousands upon thousands of homeschoolers, and I can tell you this, they have not given their personal information to their public school districts. 
Unless children were enrolled in public school prior to homeschooling, the school would not have the information. 
We believe it is a gross negligence for anyone to risk the loss of liberty we enjoy in Missouri because a mother saw a list of homeschoolers information posted in a local school. The school should have been taken to task, not our Missouri Homeschool statute! 
Our right to privacy is clearly stated in the Bill of Rights listed in the amendments above this section. 
In regard to this section of HB 1139, homeschooling father, Bob Wells, who testified on CHEF’s (FCM) behalf in opposition to HB 540 in 1999, which CHEF successfully defeated, states:
This appears to have one logical goal:  to introduce into that “reasonable suspicion” accountability the local public school and school board, where they were NOT engaged previously.  All the business about the school board or school not disclosing info that they have regarding a HS student or parent is completely unnecessary as they shouldn’t have that info in the first place – NO JURISDICTION. 
And we can see why they added all that language when we get down to the last added subsection 3 (a) – (c).   Here, Public Schools or School Boards MAY disclose info they have re: HS students to other public school members, and the Prosecuting Attorney and any OTHER person if they suspect that the H.S. is violating some provision of the law.

As I think we can see, it is another thinly veiled attempt to introduce accountability of Home Educators to not only the P.A. but to the local Public Schools and School Boards.  These “agents” cannot legally be considered as the “watchdogs” or “snoops” who have responsibility to patrol the H.S. community.  And this potential is getting even greater as some Home Schoolers are increasingly submitting themselves to the “perks” of their P.S. districts for sports activities, special extra-curricular activities.  As these parents expose their identity and their students, more and more scrutiny will be available for these watch-dogs to report “suspicious activity” or violations of the law.

I think it should be defeated entirely!
Repeal of the optional “declaration of enrollment”. RSMo 167.042, says a homeschool family MAY file a “declaration of intent to homeschool.” This filing is not mandatory and never has been. It says the purpose of the filing is to minimize unnecessary investigations, but it has had exactly the opposite effect. It has spurred many unnecessary investigations. 

Public schools chronically, habitually misunderstand and misapply 167.042. This pointless statute is the single biggest source of conflict between the homeschool community and the public-school community.

When the Missouri legislature enacted the optional declaration of enrollment in 1986, its intent was to reduce headaches, reduce confusion, and reduce unnecessary investigations, but RSMo 167.042 has accomplished exactly the opposite of what the legislature intended.
Really? Many unnecessary investigations? How many? Jon and I know thousands of homeschoolers, we have been leaders for 32 years, leaders for many years over our own support group and many years over our CHEF/FCM support groups. We have not seen many investigations nor has our support group leaders or our attorney, David Klarich. And nearly all the investigations we have been called upon to resolve, have involved divorced parents where one parent hotlines the other parent who is homeschooling the children. Divorce always has its consequences. Revenge and retribution, unfortunately, sometimes occur. But David and we have always promptly resolved the investigations simply with phone calls.
Filing is not mandatory. In fact, according to our attorney, our support group leaders, and based on our own experience, this provision has minimized unnecessary investigations. 
None of us believe that public schools chronically and habitually misunderstand and misapply 167.042. Nor has it been the biggest source of conflict between the homeschool community and public school community. As a matter of fact, I believe that the public school community understands this point perfectly. 
Really, how many homeschoolers do you know that have had truant officers on their door step or even Division of Family Services on their doorstep? That is pretty much a thing of the past because we have done a great job educating, lobbing, and protecting. 
Again, a few investigations do not warrant risking losing the liberties we enjoy in Missouri because of our clear Homeschool Statute. 
V. Saralee Rhoads, Co-Founder of FHE, with husband, Bill Rhoads writes in regard to both HB 857 and HB 1139: 

The Nose of the Camel  
Yes, indeed, beware!  We always knew that one day a challenge of our homeschool law, one of the best in the nation, would test our diligence, and it seems that time has arrived.  To understand the danger, a brief reminder of the basis of our current law is in order.
We worked tirelessly in educating representatives about parental rights. Our narrative never varied. “We didn’t ask the state to take our children’s temperatures. We didn’t ask the state to buy their shoes. We didn’t ask the state to read them bedtime stories. We didn’t ask the state to fix them breakfast. And by the same token, we weren’t about to ask them for the privilege of choosing their education.
We won on parental rights. We are a free state. We neither register, ask permission, or submit test scores. If the state has probable cause of educational neglect, a log of hours answers the question. Easy peasy, right? 
Presumptive in any legislative narrative “guaranteeing” our rights is the implied realization that what the state gives, it may also take away.  Let me repeat that.  If the state gives you a right, the state can take away that same right. We are a free state, based on the premise that our children do not belong to the state. They belong in the family. Parents have the inalienable right to care for them.  Why would we want to change that?
Further, any attempt to open the law leaves it vulnerable for further amendments. I like the old medical adage, First, do no harm.  Leave well enough alone.  We once faced the threat of the state seizing our children. We had a safe house in Iowa and a way to get them across the border if need arose. At the time a dozen families were under DFS investigation and we had received a letter telling us our decision not to enroll our children in school would be decided in court. Let’s not go back to those days of being enslaved to a state trying to wrest control of the family. 
I realize HSLDA supports HR 1139. I wonder why? You must surely realize they earn their bread and butter by representing families needing legal assistance. Missouri home schoolers need not contribute since we are a free state.  Yet changing the law opens us to the need for legal assistance. I realize they are good people, yet an obvious conflict of interest exists. Their efforts here are not a help!
I realize that the ensuing years since we started FHE has brought a great deal of change.  Many parents band together for co-ops and learning centers, which resembles more a home-based private school than home schooling. That’s okay. Our law protects them. But let’s be clear. Homeschooling is not public school debate, public school sports, public school clubs, public school programs. If you want these options, enroll your children in public school. But leave homeschooling alone! 
Our law doesn’t need to be “cleaned up.” No one is under attack.  The only entity proposing this is HSLDA.  Family Covenant Ministries is laboring to educate and protect the law we fought so hard to put into place.  Let’s work together to keep it this way!
VI. Principle Purpose of our Republic
As stated in the Preamble of the US Constitution, the principle purpose of our Republic is to Secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity. Accordingly, strong families and a limited constitutional government are the most important pillars of our Republic.
Parental Rights Unalienable
Our Declaration of Independence states: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  
Our right to homeschool comes directly from God. It does not come from the Constitution or laws. They are unalienable meaning not alienable; that cannot be alienated; that may not be transferred, given away or taken away; incapable of being surrendered. And because they come from God, they cannot be regulated or monitored by the government or decided by federal judges. 
In Troxel v. Granville, the supreme court made it clear that the “Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children” based on the 14thAmendment.
Scalia’s Dissent in Troxel v. Granville: 

Parental rights are “unalienable” and come from God (Declaration of Independence). They are among the retained rights of the people (9th Amendment). (Parental rights don’t come from the 14th Amendment!)
The State has no power to interfere with parents’ God-given authority over the rearing of their children, and to act accordingly. 
The federal Constitution does not mention “parental rights”-such cases do not “arise under the Constitution”. 
Scalia warns against turning family law over to the federal government:
“If we embrace this unenumerated right…we will be ushering in a new regime of judicially prescribed, and federally prescribed, family law. I have no reason to believe that federal judges will be better at this than state legislatures; and state legislatures have the great advantages of doing harm in a more circumscribed area, of being able to correct their mistakes in a flash, and of being removable by the people.”https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/parental-rights-amendment/
This is why, from the beginning of its proposal, we have been staunchly opposed to the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) proposed by Michael Farris, co-founder of HSLDA. 
Parental Rights” God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable? by Publius Huldah would be an excellent article for all of you to read, along with all the articles she has written against a Constitutional Convention, which Michael Farris, co-founder of HSLDA, also actively promotes and works for. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/parental-rights-amendment/
Family Covenant Ministries does not look to an entity outside Missouri to protect our liberties. For 32 years, Jon and I, and for the past 29 years, David Klarich, have worked hard to protect your liberties! 
Bill and Saralee Rhoads, founders of FHE, remain our friends today. Our family and their family visit in each other’s homes, we talk on the phone, and write one another. Bill and Saralee, along with Jim and Laura Rogers, were the ones that secured our homeschool statute. Saralee Rhoads lobbied every week in Jefferson City until the proposed homeschool statute became our law. 
Jon and I were the Rhoads and FHE’s biggest supporters, promoters, and financial backers. We are the ones that honored FHE as our state organization, supported them, and unified homeschoolers to support them. When FHE held any events, our CHEF (now FCM) families were the ones that filled the venues. 
However, that all changed drastically when certain self-centered FHE board members, began a deceitful coup to remove the Rhoads from their own organization and replace the Rhoads state newsletter, The Heart of America Report, with another newsletter which they hoped would be written by a board member’s child.  It was a convoluted, self-serving, manipulative move that Jon and I, and all our CHEF support group leaders, stood fast against during the long drawn out battle. 
Considering the new focus on destroying the foundation on which FHE rested, the board no longer viewed leadership as self-sacrificing nor did they extend themselves in the same manner for our families. Jon and I have large boxes of notes that I took during these ungodly board meetings, which reveal deceit, lies, and arrogant manipulation for power along with the drastic and dangerous departure from serving homeschooling families. Through it all, Jon and I remained faithful to God, Missouri homeschoolers, and our founders who sacrificed so much for all of us. 
When the Rhoads left FHE, under duress, I may add, Bill and Saralee, along with Jim Rogers and other leaders, came to Jon and I to ask that we make Christian Home Educators Fellowship (CHEF-later known as Family Covenant Ministries FCM) Missouri’s state organization to save homeschooling in Missouri. After much prayer and considerable encouragement from many leaders, we agreed.  
When we left FHE and CHEF became the state organization, HSLDA came to us and said that they knew that CHEF was the state organization, we had the backing of Missouri homeschoolers, and knew what we were doing, and told us that they wanted to work with us. We could not agree because our two organizations were fundamentally worlds apart, not only on homeschooling, but on basic principles like unalienable rights. When we refused, they asked if we would share David Klarich’s legislative reports with them, which we don’t.  
Our biblical worldview makes all the difference in where we stand on issues. FCM believes parental rights are given to us by God and are unalienable. 
To understand the fundamental difference between FCM’s position and HSLDA’s position on parental rights, you need look no further than the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) proposed by co-founder of HSLDA, Michael Farris, which grants more power to the federal government. FCM has opposed this very dangerous amendment since it was first introduced. 
To understand this in more depth, go to Parental Rights” God-given and Unalienable? Or Government-granted and Revocable? by Publius Huldah https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/parental-rights-amendment/
Michael Farris is also the lead advocate for the Convention of States project which FCM also adamantly opposes as we believe that it will destroy the Constitution we hold dear and eliminate many of the liberties we enjoy today. We would recommend reading articles on this also at publiushuldah.com. And the article on The Biblical Foundation of Our Constitution at
If you type in Michael Farris works for Constitution Convention, you will find a host of interesting reading.  
IX. FCM’s Lobbyist and Attorney
Ever wonder why some of you receive alerts from HSLDA but not FCM (CHEF). The reason is quite simple-FCM has David Klarich. 
FCM’s lobbyist and attorney, David Klarich, lives, works, and homeschooled his children, in Missouri. David is a staunch Christian, understands God’s law, parent’s unalienable rights, and homeschooling. He understands the Constitution and limited government.
David appreciates our present homeschool statute and works to protect it against bills such as HB 1139, because he believes we have the best statute in the country, and wants to maintain our liberties for the Missouri families he has served the past 29 years and for his children’s children. He has a vested interest!  
David loves Missouri, he personally knows many of Missouri’s top leaders, and he understands how government works in Missouri because he served as a Missouri Representative and Missouri Senator for 13 years until he reached his term limit.
David is still well known and deeply respected in the Capitol by both Republicans and Democrats.  
Since then, he has served as FCM lobbyist with a full 29 years of experience. 
David has drafted, sponsored, passed legislation, and written amendments to legislation. But when it comes to homeschooling, David knows that the best policy is to restrict abuse, not alter our homeschool statute or write more laws which invite more governmental intrusion. 
We do not cry wolf by putting out alerts on bills just because they relate to homeschooling or because they contain language that could jeopardize our freedom. We only put out alerts when David is no longer able to keep the bill from becoming a threat to our liberty. 
We understand the vulnerability that must be felt by organizations that don’t have a lobbyist, and certainly not one with the vast experience and knowledge of David, who knows the Representatives and Senators well, and that don’t have a liaison that is well respected in the Capitol with the track record of cooperation from the legislators. But crying wolf on bills that die in committee or not going anywhere because of promises from Representatives and Senators, does not help the homeschooling community. It has been a point of contention with us and HSLDA for years. 
Neither David, nor Jon and I make millions upon millions of dollars off homeschooling families. We actually put in our own personal monies to protect all of you on a daily basis. Our family has personally sacrificed hundreds of thousands of our own money to support our families. Therefore, we don’t find it necessary to prove to you that we are working on your behalf by alerting you to bills that will never go anywhere.. 
We are not fear mongers who drive fear into your heart by telling you if you don’t become members you won’t be unprotected. We don’t even have membership because we believe it is our responsibility to protect every homeschooler. And we don’t work during some of the year or only when issues arise, but every day of the year educating, ministering, and protecting our homeschooling families. 
Hands down, Missouri is the safest state in which to homeschool because of our efforts!
Interestingly, many of our families find it ironic, that organizations that boast that they protect homeschoolers are not actively lobbying against HB 857, one of the worst bills in the last 20 years. And terribly dismayed, that that our homeschool statute is being placed in jeopardy.  
Future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay said in 1777: "Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the constitution of their country. By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated, and be the better prepared to defend and assert them."
Law comes from a higher source than the civil authorities. The “Rule of Law” prevails when the civil authorities obey that higher Law – be it God’s Law or our Constitution. Publius Huldah 

Immediate action is needed.