This chapter begins by summarizing the book’s argument that Supreme Court justices consider human rights repugnant to the exceptionalist libertarian nature of the Constitution. Justices claim that the most important of the document’s “constitutive principles” is the limitation of government, so there can be no obligation to protect the lives and safety of even the most vulnerable children. Rights must be understood in light of the Constitution’s exceptional nature, without any intrusion from “foreign” human rights ideas, they assert. The result of this constructed identity is that, as Madison once warned, rights in U.S. law have become mere parchment barriers. Here I show this stark reality through the egregious rights violations committed against children at the U.S. southern border, including family separations. The chapter then demonstrates that the U.S. rejection of human rights weakens its role in international affairs, and that human rights are absolutely consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Contrary to the message repeated by modern Supreme Court justices, the Court has relied on international law since the country’s founding, even in cases of individual rights. Most importantly, this chapter demonstrates how human rights can be incorporated into U.S. law and policy to strengthen U.S. society and improve the lives of children. I use interviews and case studies to analyze the advantages of building human rights into U.S. law and policy especially for U.S. children.