Jump to content

Menu

Can someone please explain this to me-letter from HSLDA


Recommended Posts

Perhaps you should take a different "tone" with those of us that have differing opinions.
The pixies living in my walls agree wholeheartedly, but they refuse to back up their "opinions" with anything other than vague references to having read about it on a website.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I actually do not want the UN to have ANY say about what America does. I feel like America is ok, compared to other countries, for all of our citizens. I would like the UN to go after say... N. Korea, China, and other countries I won't name...

 

Get everything fair and just for some of the worse and then come to "aid us"...

 

:(

 

Yep. The UN is a joke. That we would give them any teeth is beyond ridiculous. The idea that a body with people that head committees from some of the worst countries for human rights could try to tell the US what to do about anything is unbelievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you should take a different "tone" with those of us that have differing opinions.

 

And perhaps my "tone" wouldn't come across as so snarky if this wasn't the thousandth time I've had to help refute blatant misinformation with facts that are extremely easy to find for anyone who has the inclination to use actual facts, and not just promote their opinion as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. The UN is a joke. That we would give them any teeth is beyond ridiculous. The idea that a body with people that head committees from some of the worst countries for human rights could try to tell the US what to do about anything is unbelievable.

 

This would NOT give them any say.

 

Treaties cannot supersede federal law. We already have *Federal* laws in place for this. This is lip service and nothing more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate the warlike and divisive language that HSLDA uses, and every time I have the misfortune to read one of their missives I am stunned by how poorly written and logic-free they are.

 

Obtained intelligence? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Are you implying that you are a military agent? (Probably, with the whole god's army sentiment.) Or do you mean that you are actually getting smarter? Because your letter shows no indication of that, Mr. Farris.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sigh.....

 

it could be a useful letter to evaluate, looking at the language that is used, how it creates an "us/them" mentality, what it considers to be shared values, the logic fallacies it uses, the manipulations that it attempts..... well, it would be enough for me to stop being a member of any group that sent me email like that.

 

double sigh.....

ann

 

Le'ts do! I'll make the coffee. Get comfortable........

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I have looked into this. It is a very valid concern. I encourage everyone to look into this issue to become educated in it. Homeschooling could be in danger if we come under the thumb of the UN who wants everything the same and streamlined for every child in every nation -- this includes education.

 

I'm not saying HSLDA isn't looking for money, but that this is a real issue to be watchful of. It never hurts to be aware because if we're not, that's when legislation sneaks up and bites you in the ......

:iagree:I won't be joining HSLDA or sending them money any time soon, but I don't want the UN to have any say in US education.

Edited by mom2scouts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US Constitution restrains the federal government from infringing on our rights. Treaties are between countries, sought of a contract as how they will operate toward one another. Treaties do not change our Constitutional rights. Treaties can show up as non-binding dicta in Court decisions, and let's face it, governments do overstep themselves BUT even I, as a supporter of HSLDA, believe that this is sensationalism.

Now I know that David Gibbs, from Homeschool Legal Advantage, would be just as troublesome to some on this board, but he gave a really good lecture on this matter at a homeschool conference. He pointed out that since our Congress cannot even agree on a budget, how realistic is it to think that we could get them to pass such an Amendment. Instead, we should focus our energies on homeschooling well and building relationships with our community that they see what a great option it is. There is a lot of case law already in support of Parental Rights as a fundamental right and if we ever get to the point that we need a Constitutional Amendment to protect that, we would already be so far gone that is would not do any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/229711-senators-back-un-treaty-on-disability-rights

 

The U.S. government has signed but not ratified the treaty, which now requires Senate approval. It contains detailed policy objectives, though a release said that ratification would require "no changes to U.S. laws or new appropriations."

 

"I have long advocated on behalf of equal access and non-discrimination for all Americans, including our veterans and today’s disabled soldiers returning home from serving their nation in war," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in a statement.

 

"I support U.S. ratification of the disability treaty, as it seeks to advance these same fundamental values of equality and human dignity around the world."

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82316.html

 

 

This is a human rights issue that affects the lives of millions of disabled Americans and their families. We need to protect the rights of Americans with disabilities not only at home, but abroad. And we need to set the standard to which other nations can aspire. The CRPD provides the U.S. with a powerful platform to demonstrate our stand on basic human rights and show the world that the U.S. can still lead by example.

 

And that is what this is about, our example.

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd only be annoyed that cyber mail doesn't burn.

 

:iagree:

 

I don't even bother to read the emails from the HSLDA any more. Their politics have long since overshadowed their original mission to help US homeschoolers.

 

I truly would like to support an organization that is truly like HSLDA claims to be (helping homeschoolers deal with problems with school officials, etc.) but without all of the political stuff. Maybe the HSLDA actually does help a lot of people, but I can't justify sending my money to them, because at this point, they seem to be overly-political, power-hungry fearmongers who will say or do just about anything to appear to be powerful and relevant (which they are not, at least not to anyone I know.)

Edited by Catwoman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who choose not to research all the facts for themselves, from a multitude of information resources, are easy to manipulate. Remember when, over 4 years ago, there was a big argument here about how the President was going to take away our right to homeschool? Let's go back and check--did he even try? Same piece of garbage, just a different version. HSLDA is just a big boatload of c@rp parading around as a caring organization, when all they care about is making money to further their agenda. They may have started out as legitimate, but power and greed have consumed them.

Going back over all previous HSLDA bulletins and checking for accuracy (or even any semblence to reality) in this manner would be a fun exercise, but I suspect they'd claim success and take credit for having preempted the tide. :glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pixies living in my walls agree wholeheartedly, but they refuse to back up their "opinions" with anything other than vague references to having read about it on a website.

 

You have pixies, I'm so jealous. All I have are ants. :D

 

 

Considering the kerfuffle that they created in Germany last year, I surprised they have the _______ to include a reference to them in such a letter.

 

I am surprised they didn't include a reference to the end of the world, as that may be back on the schedule as of this week. (read: sarcasm) :scared:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something that I haven't seen addressed yet in this thread: anyone care to explain to me why the HSLDA has a beef with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities? How does that tie in with alleged threats to our parenting rights and homeschooling?

 

http://tash.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Dispelling-Myths-about-the-CRPD.pdf

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet the UN felt that one. Burn.

Just for the record, Norway ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991, and Anders Behring Breivik, convicted of the massacre of 77 people, has registered the following examples of inhumane treatment and human rights violations in the prison to which he has been sentenced to a minimum of 21 years:

 

* his coffee is served cold

* he does not have enough butter for his bread

* he is not allowed moisturiser

* his cell is poorly decorated and has no view

* his cell is too cold

* handcuffs used are uncomfortable

* he does not have time to complete his teeth brushing and shaving at a sufficiently leisurely pace

* he does not have control over the switches to his television and lights

 

So clearly, there are plenty of human rights abuses even in lands that have ratified this treaty. Never fear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, Norway ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991, and Anders Behring Breivik, convicted of the massacre of 77 people, has registered the following examples of inhumane treatment and human rights violations in the prison to which he has been sentenced to a minimum of 21 years:

 

* his coffee is served cold

* he does not have enough butter for his bread

* he is not allowed moisturiser

* his cell is poorly decorated and has no view

* his cell is too cold

* handcuffs used are uncomfortable

* he does not have time to complete his teeth brushing and shaving at a sufficiently leisurely pace

* he does not have control over the switches to his television and lights

 

So clearly, there are plenty of human rights abuses even in lands that have ratified this treaty. Never fear.

I will cry into my pillow tonight as nightmares of his many sufferings haunt me

 

 

ETA;: I just want to mention I hope it did not sound like I was leveling sarcasm to the person I quoted. I meant it as an appreciation of her wit.

Edited by Sis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it was a slow day and they needed to find something to be outraged about?

 

 

No. They spent oodles and oodles of cha-ching backing a losing campaign. Now they need more money. The "outrage du jour" is simply a tool for prying the cash out of your naive, scared little pockets.

 

It really is AATM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urgent Post-Election Update from Mike Farris

Dear Friend,

 

It’s going to take even more effort to defend our God-given parental rights.

Mike Farris HSLDA Founder and ChairmanT

here is no easy way to say this. Our goal of protecting parental rights and homeschool freedom just got a lot harder as a result of Tuesday’s election. This is especially true in the U.S. Senate where we will now face 53 senators who have uniformly supported UN treaties to undermine our families and our national sovereignty.

Those who wish to push America into the camp of UN-controlled nations have to be absolutely giddy at their prospects.

Before the election, we had obtained intelligence that the proponents of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities were going to make a serious run for ratification during the lame duck session of Congress that starts next week. Their chances of success have dramatically improved.

We can and must fight back. We need 34 senators to stand against these efforts that would place American policy and our families under the watchful control of the United Nations.

It is going to take a far more robust effort to stop the ratification in this political atmosphere. We will have to conduct a massive public relations campaign to educate about American sovereignty and the impact of UN treaties on our liberty.

Time is absolutely of the essence to stop the Senate from handing our nation over to the bureaucrats in New York and Geneva. Please give sacrificially today to our Homeschool Freedom Fund to halt this pro-treaty surge.I just returned from Germany where parental rights in education are non-existent. German parents warned me to redouble my efforts to stop these UN treaties lest we fall into the same trap.

 

I need your help right now. Your donation is tax-deductible. More importantly, it will help preserve your God-given freedom to direct the education and upbringing of your children.

Sincerely,

 

Michael Farris

Chairman

Translation:

 

"We think the UN 'rights of the child' document threatens the practice of homeshooling in the US. We don't like that lots of senators are pro-UN because we are anti-UN. We are anti-UN for a variety of reasons, including homeschooling reasons, but basically just because of our strong feelings about America in general. We're going to raise an anti-UN fuss. Please send money to finance our fuss."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We will have to conduct a massive public relations campaign to educate about American sovereignty and the impact of UN treaties on our liberty.

 

 

Isn't this sentence missing something? Like, say, specifying the group at whom the education (not to be confused with "intelligence") campaign will be directed?

 

 

I will cry into my pillow tonight as nightmares of his many sufferings haunt me

 

Sing it, Sister. I will join you in chorus as I howl towards the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their scare tactics really bother me, as does their divisive language.

 

I researched all of this a a few years ago because someone was passing out flyers at church that supported HSLDA's view on this. Alas, I no longer have my notes, but my conclusion was that it was not a valid concern.

 

It reminds me of some Christian radio shows that seem to have as their main goal to rouse extreme anger and divisiveness among its audience.

 

I am a Christian, which is one of the reasons this tone and strategy makes me sad. It gives us a bad rap, you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The threat to parental rights by the UN is a valid concern. They are trying to get the US to adopt their policy giving more rights to the child which will indeed make it harder to be a parent and thus homeschool.

 

:iagree:

 

I've read the entire treaty and it leaves me with a lot of troubling questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are two separate issues here - the UN treaty and the letter's tone.

 

Whether the UN treaty might compromise the right of parents to homeschool would make for a good discussion. I will say I live in a country where it's been ratified and homeschooling in my province is free of many and perhaps most of the hoops I see many American homeschoolers jumping through.

 

Regardless, whether there's a case to be made for the UN treaty being harmful or not, the tone of the HSLDA letter was ridiculous. I'm convinced the undertone of the HSLDA is, "you just aren't bright enough to do this stuff, pay us to do it for you."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised they didn't include a reference to the end of the world, as that may be back on the schedule as of this week. (read: sarcasm) :scared:

 

As my son keeps reminding me, he doesn't really need to do school anyway since Dec. 21st is the last day..... so they really shouldn't worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain this to me-letter from HSLDA

Here's my attempt. HSLDA's words in purple, with my translation of what I think they're saying, and my comments on it in italics, below.

 

Urgent Post-Election Update from Mike Farris

Dear Friend,

It’s going to take even more effort to defend our God-given parental rights.

Mike Farris HSLDA Founder and Chairman

There is no easy way to say this. Our goal of protecting parental rights and homeschool freedom just got a lot harder as a result of Tuesday’s election. This is especially true in the U.S. Senate where we will now face 53 senators who have uniformly supported UN treaties to undermine our families and our national sovereignty.

 

HSLDA is worried that the balance of power in the senate has changed, towards those senators who have been OK in the past with previous UN treaties.

 

I think regardless of our politics we can assume here that American senators on either side of the aisle have no specific desire to undermine families (though they differ on what kinds of things might have that unintended result), and they certainly have no desire to undermine our national sovereignty (they have, after all, devoted their careers to representing their state at the federal level). The last sentence is ambiguous, but I'm going to give HSLDA the benefit of the doubt that they believe it is the treaties which will undermine families and sovereignty, rather than the senators.

 

Those who wish to push America into the camp of UN-controlled nations have to be absolutely giddy at their prospects.

 

HSLDA seems to be saying that there are people who specifically want the UN to control the US. It's not clear whether this refers to the senators themselves, or the American people who have elected the senators.

 

Conversely, my understanding of those on the left is that they want these UN treaties to bring other countries up to the standards that the US has already instituted regarding women, children, the disabled, and so on, not so much that they want the treaties to change what is happening here at home. They see it as spreading our values to other countries, rather than vice-versa. HSLDA seems to see it as other countries spreading their values to us.

 

Before the election, we had obtained intelligence that the proponents of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities were going to make a serious run for ratification during the lame duck session of Congress that starts next week. Their chances of success have dramatically improved.

 

HSLDA thinks that the Senate will be working on passing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

 

(Note - this is NOT the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.) They feel the election has changed the odds for passing this, although the lame duck session they mention actually involves the current (old) senators, not the newly-elected ones.

 

We can and must fight back. We need 34 senators to stand against these efforts that would place American policy and our families under the watchful control of the United Nations.

 

HSLDA feels that this treaty (on Persons with Disabilities) would give the UN control over us.

 

They do not explain how they believe this control would work, in terms of implementation or enforcement.

It is going to take a far more robust effort to stop the ratification in this political atmosphere. We will have to conduct a massive public relations campaign to educate about American sovereignty and the impact of UN treaties on our liberty.

 

HSLDA feels that they need to educate the public about their (HSLDA's) concerns about UN control.

 

Again, they do not explain how this UN control would work, rather they sort of take it for granted that the reader already believes this. This is a bit odd, as they are saying they need to educate people about this, but they do not attempt to do so here. They are attempting to get people fired up about an issue, without clearly laying out their specific concerns.

 

Time is absolutely of the essence to stop the Senate from handing our nation over to the bureaucrats in New York and Geneva.

 

HSLDA seems to be concerned that this UN issue is time-critical.

 

Again they raise the specter of UN control, and European control (Geneva) without explaining how this would work. I assume they feel the time is critical as the "old" senate will have more senators on their side than the "new" senate. However, if the old senate shoots it down, can't the new senate bring it up again?

 

Please give sacrificially today to our Homeschool Freedom Fund to halt this pro-treaty surge.

 

HSLDA is soliciting donations, presumably to help lobby against the senate voting to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

 

This is the first mention of homeschooling in this piece. They have not explained what Rights of Persons with Disabilities have to do with losing homeschooling freedoms.

 

I just returned from Germany where parental rights in education are non-existent. German parents warned me to redouble my efforts to stop these UN treaties lest we fall into the same trap.

 

HSLDA seems to be making a connection here between the legal status of homeschooling families in Germany, and UN treaties.

 

They do not explain how or why UN treaties would change homeschooling laws in the US. Specifically, they seem here to be tying German homeschooling issues with the rights of disabled people, as if somehow giving disabled people rights would change the legal status of homeschooling in the US, but they have not connected those dots and explained why the two are related, and more specifically why disabled rights would make homeschooling more difficult, rather than those rights removing barriers to homeschooling for disabled children and/or disabled parents.

 

I need your help right now. Your donation is tax-deductible.

 

Please give us money.

 

More importantly, it will help preserve your God-given freedom to direct the education and upbringing of your children.

 

If HSLDA does not raise the money for this fight, you may lose your right to homeschool.

 

Again, in this entire piece, they have not explained how setting standards for the rights of disabled people will interfere with the legality of homeschooling.

.................................

I glanced at the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and it seemed to be largely about the kinds of accommodations we take for granted here in the US. There was nothing in the education section that created concerns for me. One other section did stand out for me:

 

Article 10 - Right to life

States Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.

 

This is what HSLDA wants us to fight against?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are two separate issues here - the UN treaty and the letter's tone.

 

Whether the UN treaty might compromise the right of parents to homeschool would make for a good discussion. I will say I live in a country where it's been ratified and homeschooling in my province is free of many and perhaps most of the hoops I see many American homeschoolers jumping through.

...

 

Yes, I think this would be an interesting discussion. HSLDA did not explain why they felt the treaty would be a bad thing.

 

I've read the entire treaty and it leaves me with a lot of troubling questions.

 

Would you like to elaborate? What areas did you have questions about? I'd like to think The Hive's collective diverse mind would be capable of looking closer at the document, digging around and seeing what areas of concern may exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why the uproar about the Disabilities Act. I know there are those who think that disabled children are better served in an educational institution with specialists and such than at home. Perhaps it is something along those lines.

 

There was recently a case in our papers about a family refusing cancer treatment for their child and were taken to court. Homeschooling a disabled child might be seen as withholding necessary treatment....

 

I don't know. I'm just brainstorming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a member. I just saw this posted over on SCM and the whole sky is falling mentality has been the response so I thought I would ask here where calmer minds might prevail.:001_smile:

 

:001_smile: I didn't say you were. I just mentally noted that the letter is possibly a bit inflammatory in the hopes that even opponents of HSLDA would have it stick to their sock like a burr and get moved along to the next forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is on their website

 

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2012/201205250.asp

 

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

 

Read them both and compare to what is known regarding US law.

 

Thanks Sis!

 

So HSLDA lists "Ten Specific Problems with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities"[/url.]

I'll tackle just one today - number 9, which addresses spanking.

 

Here's the relevant section from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities:

 

Article 15 - Freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

 

1. No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his or her free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.

 

2. States Parties shall take all effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, from being subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

 

Torture and cruelty are bad things - I think we can all agree on that. So what's HSLDA's concern? Here's HSLDA's Problem 9:

 

Article 15’s call for a ban on “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” is the exact same language used in the UN CRC which has been authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents. It should be noted that Article 15 is not limited to persons with disabilities. It says “no one shall be subjected to … inhuman or degrading treatment.” This means that spanking will be banned entirely in the United States. (Bolding mine.)

 

HSLDA says this language has been "authoritatively interpreted to ban any spanking by parents". However, they don't mention who the "authority" is who made this interpretation, or what their reasoning is. Without knowing who the authority is, and in what context they made the interpretation, we don't know how much weight, if any, to put on their opinion. I think this is an extreme and inaccurate interpretation. The passage reads to me like it is intended to address serious mistreatment of disabled children and adults, by their parents, caretakers, teachers, and others, not a parent's routine swat on a toddler's bottom.

 

I notice that in HSLDA's quote from this section they remove the words "torture" and "cruel" from the original, which takes some of the context from this passage. Removing these words subtlety changes the weight given to each word, changes the focus of the passage, and changes the tipping point, if you will, of the kind of behavior the passage is targeting. The kind of spanking that many in the Hive would find acceptable doesn't even come close to rising to the level of "torture", "cruel", or for that matter "inhuman". Spanking that does rise to that level would arguably be child abuse, and already against the law in the US, something with which most of us agree.

 

Which leaves us with "degrading treatment". Now, all attempts to balance conflicting rights require drawing a line between the two, and the exact location of that line is always a matter of opinion. In this case, assuming a parent/disabled child situation, we're drawing a line between the right of the parent to raise a child as they see fit, and the right of the child to freedom from serious, dangerous mistreatment. In the vast majority of families this simply isn't an issue. Sadly, however, there are families where children are subject to serious mistreatment, and this is what Article 15 is trying to address. Of course, we would all draw the line between "degrading treatment" and reasonable everyday parenting in different places. For example, many articulate 10-year-olds would argue that expecting them to eat their broccoli is "degrading treatment", but I think most of us would put this in the "reasonable parenting" category. However, the context of the passage, which discusses torture and cruelty, seems to me to be written to address serious mistreatment of disabled children and adults, not a routine swat on the bottom of a toddler about to touch a hot stove. Given the context, I think that "degrading treatment" is referring to seriously harmful situations, not the odd spanking now and again.

 

Thus given the full context of the passage, and the focus on "torture" and "cruelty", I think it's a misinterpretation to say it means that "spanking will be banned entirely in the United States". That seems like a pretty extreme stretch to me.

Edited by askPauline
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say the information is about as reliable and meaningful as most of the "urgent" updates that come from the HSLDA. (Not.)

 

And what always seems to be most "urgent" is that we "urgently" need to send our money to the HSLDA. :rolleyes:

 

I guess some people must fall for it, though, because the urgent updates keep coming. :tongue_smilie:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been countries who have signed on to UN treaties which ban "torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" -- which have also entirely banned spanking/striking of children for any reason. However, it is a logical falicy to assert that the juxtaposition of those two actions means that the the extension of assault laws to cover parent-child situations is the direct result of the treaty, and thus constitutes an 'authorotative interpretation' of that clause of the treaty.

 

It is also illogical to find a 'homeschool legal defense' organization asserting that their mandate extends to defending the curent American freedom to spank/strike children. Such an extension seems to imply that would not be possible to homeschool children without hitting them... which is rediculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite is their opposition to UN treaties to end discrimination against women because traditional family roles are vital to homeschooling.

 

http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/National/2011/H.R.20/default.asp

 

ParentalRights.org also opposes the UN's treaty on human rights for children because "Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure" and because a person who commits murder a day before their 18th bday would be treated as a child. I didn't know advocating long prison terms was a major issue affecting homeschoolers. Maybe because it'd give them too much leisure time??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the HSLDA does a lot of important work to protect OUR rights. Maybe if it's easy to HS where you are, you don't seem them at work. But around me there have been a few times over the years that they've been called in to address an issue. They have also clarified our law for us, telling us what the regulations say in English so that we can be in compliance. They are involved with the Rights of A Child because anytime the law moves towards taking away parental rights, it moves away from our freedom to raise our children as we wish, including homeschooling. That is something that should concern every member here.

 

And I'm not even a member of HSLDA, but I've considered becoming one recently as we venture into our final years and transitioning children with disabilities back into the school system. Also, as our political environment continues to shift ever more towards Big Brother knows best, I think it becomes increasingly important to support their work and make sure someone is keeping an eye on things for homeschoolers, because who else has our backs?

 

Brownie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know the HSLDA does a lot of important work to protect OUR rights. Maybe if it's easy to HS where you are, you don't seem them at work.

 

Go read past threads on this. HSLDA has interfered and made homeschooling more difficult in some places, often shouldering the local groups out of the process. Here in NC they often advise people to over-comply with the law. So, I disagree with this as a general statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest sophiaclassical

I believe the heart of the issue is with making treaties that affect the parental rights of American citizens. Article IV of the U.S. Consititution states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary nothwithstanding."

Basically, a ratified treaty is equal to the U.S. Constitution and federal statues, and voids any contrary state laws or constitutional provisions. On Tuesday, I voted for representatives from my state to serve my state both on the local and national level. When new laws are presented, I can voice my opinion and play a role in the outcome. In two to four years, I can vote my representative in or out. An international treaty nullifies this process. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilites places family decisions in the court of an unelected foreign community. These decisions encompass both medical and educational realms as this governing board decides "what is in the best interest of the child".

My daughter was homeschooled and went to college to obtain her psychology degree. She has worked in a childrens' home for years with troubled 11-17 year old girls. Does the government need to step in at times and provide for the best interests of children? Absolutely! However, let it be the U.S. government under due process of law - not an international government.

Why is HSLDA concerned? Look up the story of Dominic Johannson in Sweden. Investigate why families in Germany seek asylum in the U.S. Those governments firmly believe that public education is in the best interest of families.

It is a worthy goal to provide for the disabled and protect them from discrimination. We have the Americans with Disabilites Act. If more should be done, then the U.S. needs to use the provisions under our own Constitution to make changes, not signing a treaty that will forfeit the decision making process that makes the U.S. a free and independent country.

Does this e-mail sound alarmists? Perhaps. But we are so busy, often times someone needs to yell to get our attention. Just like my little guys right now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the heart of the issue is with making treaties that affect the parental rights of American citizens. Article IV of the U.S. Consititution states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary nothwithstanding."

Basically, a ratified treaty is equal to the U.S. Constitution and federal statues, and voids any contrary state laws or constitutional provisions. On Tuesday, I voted for representatives from my state to serve my state both on the local and national level. When new laws are presented, I can voice my opinion and play a role in the outcome. In two to four years, I can vote my representative in or out. An international treaty nullifies this process. ...

 

It does seem at face value, reading only the Constitution, this would imply that a treaty supersedes the Constitution. And if that was true, it would something to be quite concerned about, as then treaties could undermine our whole system of government.

 

However, to understand the Constitution, we also have to take into account the Supreme Court's interpretation of it. From what I understand, based on my reading on this issue, their interpretation is quite straightforward - the Supreme Court has held that Article IV does NOT mean that treaties supersede the Constitution. The following section of Reid v. Covert makes this very clear:

 

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

 

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

 

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution.

 

Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [31]

 

It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights—let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition—to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

 

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [33]

 

For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

 

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

 

What I do not understand is why, given the clear language in Reid v. Covert, HSLDA believes that "if ratified, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities would become the supreme law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI, would trump state laws, and would be used as binding precedent by state and federal judges". This seems to me to be exactly the opposite of the Court's finding in Reid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the heart of the issue is with making treaties that affect the parental rights of American citizens. Article IV of the U.S. Consititution states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary nothwithstanding."

Basically, a ratified treaty is equal to the U.S. Constitution and federal statues, and voids any contrary state laws or constitutional provisions. On Tuesday, I voted for representatives from my state to serve my state both on the local and national level. When new laws are presented, I can voice my opinion and play a role in the outcome. In two to four years, I can vote my representative in or out. An international treaty nullifies this process. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilites places family decisions in the court of an unelected foreign community. These decisions encompass both medical and educational realms as this governing board decides "what is in the best interest of the child".

My daughter was homeschooled and went to college to obtain her psychology degree. She has worked in a childrens' home for years with troubled 11-17 year old girls. Does the government need to step in at times and provide for the best interests of children? Absolutely! However, let it be the U.S. government under due process of law - not an international government.

Why is HSLDA concerned? Look up the story of Dominic Johannson in Sweden. Investigate why families in Germany seek asylum in the U.S. Those governments firmly believe that public education is in the best interest of families.

It is a worthy goal to provide for the disabled and protect them from discrimination. We have the Americans with Disabilites Act. If more should be done, then the U.S. needs to use the provisions under our own Constitution to make changes, not signing a treaty that will forfeit the decision making process that makes the U.S. a free and independent country.

Does this e-mail sound alarmists? Perhaps. But we are so busy, often times someone needs to yell to get our attention. Just like my little guys right now...

By what authority and with what mechanism does it do this?

 

Does CPS make mistakes in the US? Is it occasionally not a "mistake?" Yup, and without the aid of international conspirators. People aren't always right or honourable or acting within their jurisdiction. But what and how is the "international government" or even the "international law" responsible for German homeschooling laws and the Johannson case in Sweden? And why aren't other signatories to the evil UN treaties restricting their homeschooling laws? Why isn't the "international government" cracking down on them if it has the authority and the power? And for that matter, why should HSLDA, a US organization, have any say in the affairs of Germany or Sweden, sovereign states? I find that ironic, but I suspect they've taken in more contributions because of these issues than they've spent on them. ;)

 

Did you read Pauline's posts in this thread (including the one she posted while I was typing this :D )? Do you have any thought about her specific points?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My favorite is their opposition to UN treaties to end discrimination against women because traditional family roles are vital to homeschooling.

 

http://www.hslda.org/Legislation/National/2011/H.R.20/default.asp

 

ParentalRights.org also opposes the UN's treaty on human rights for children because "Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure" and because a person who commits murder a day before their 18th bday would be treated as a child. I didn't know advocating long prison terms was a major issue affecting homeschoolers. Maybe because it'd give them too much leisure time??

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...