Can someone please explain this to me-letter from HSLDA

[Slartibartfast]

 

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.

 

Because it doesn't suit them?

[Word Nerd]

 

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.

 

That would be an excellent question for one of their members to ask, as I assume they would take supporters' concerns more seriously than those of their critics.

[stripe]

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.

Actually, where I am, the legality of homeschooling was fought for by entirely different people with entirely different agendas, before the HSLDA was formed.

 

I don't consider traditional family structures, conservative Christians' rights to evangelize, opposition to accessibility for the handicapped, opposition to discrimination against women, and other matters issues that I need anyone to legislate on my behalf for. I managed to get married without their help, and the rest either don't apply to me or are not issues I share with them. And they absolutely have no bearing on homeschooling, except in the most tenuous ways. The idea that the UN is going to pay a visit to everyone's house to ensure it's compliant with handicap access laws is just a scream.

 

But if we're getting into everything that could possibly impact homeschoolers' lives, why not take on issues nutrition and pesticides (since we all eat), clothing (since most homeschoolers wear clothes some of the time), the book publishing industry (let's save it!), saving small businesses, electrical power and other issues concerning fuel (for those who use electricity), the safety of the meat industry OR advocating for vegetarianism, drug and alcohol abuse, good health care (sick mothers can't teach, and neither can sick kids learn), hearing and vision screenings, lead testing, assistance with predatory lenders, assistance with housing (it is called "home"schooling), anti-bullying activism, and/or environmentalism (since it's hard to homeschool if the world self-destructs). Whew! And I'm just getting started! How about typing classes? Cooking classes? Recycling of used electronics? Donating our hair en masse?

 

Where does HSLDA see homeschool advocacy ending? That, to me, is a critical question. It seems my view is different from theirs.

[Slartibartfast]

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...

 

No, a treaty is not equal to our Constitution. You are misinformed. There are several links in this thread already where people have posted SCOTUS decisions reaffirming over and over that our Constitution takes precedence over any treaty.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

 

Here is the thing-the SCOTUS ruling with regard to the Reid decision is the law of the land, just as much as the constitution, interpreting the intent of the constitution is their job.

[justasque]

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.

 

Dominic's story has been discussed here previously, in a number of threads.

 

In cases where children are removed from their parents' custody, it's often very difficult to get both sides of the story, as the social workers have to preserve the child's privacy. Thus, you get the parents' point of view, but the social workers are often unable to make their case in the press.

 

The classic example was the infamous California case a few years back, where a family was banned from homeschooling, and there was quite the kerfuffle about the implications of this for loving homeschooling families. Eventually the presumably-leaked case documents were published, showing that, if memory serves, among other horrid things, the father had violently slammed one daughter's head against the wall, and the parents had continued to employ a babysitter who had previously repeatedly sexually abused one of their daughters. Needless to say, many of us have learned to be very cautious about assuming a case is only about homeschooling without hearing from the other side. HSLDA in particular has a history of cherry-picking facts to present a simple "homeschoolers vs. the bad guys" scenario, rather than laying out both sides of cases which are in reality more messy and complex. This practice is, I believe, detrimental in the long run, in the "crying wolf" sort of way, in part because it leads many of us to discount HSLDA's opinion on such cases.

 

In Dominic's case, the lack of information from the social worker's point of view was compounded by the fact that the primary documents were not in English. Nonetheless, there were enough red flags in Dominic's case to make me reserve judgement about this being a situation where a child was ripped from the bosom of a caring, competent homeschooling family simply because the authorities were anti-homeschooling.

 

As to Germany, I have heard of one case of a German homeschooling family requesting asylum in the US; have there been any more?

[stripe]

Dominic's story has been discussed here previously, in a number of threads.

 

In cases where children are removed from their parents' custody, it's often very difficult to get both sides of the story, as the social workers have to preserve the child's privacy. Thus, you get the parents' point of view, but the social workers are often unable to make their case in the press.

I remember reading with a non-homeschooling case that was cited in a non-homeschooling publication I read, expressing outrage, and an "us v. them" mentality about a mother who'd left her baby who napped predictably at home while she went to pick up an older child, and the child woke up and started screaming and a repair man who heard the child called the police. I was not outraged on the mother's behalf. I did not believe it was a case of racism or religious discrimination. I thought she was neglectful, although likely not malevolently.

[justasque]

Here is the thing-the SCOTUS ruling with regard to the Reid decision is the law of the land, just as much as the constitution, interpreting the intent of the constitution is their job.

 

Exactly. And if HSLDA seems to be unaware of this, and unaware of Reid, then that raises concerns as to whether they are truly a competent authority on Constitutional legal matters.

 

Now maybe they have an argument as to why Reid doesn't apply here; if so I would be interested to hear it.

[elegantlion]

 

Where does HSLDA see homeschool advocacy ending? That, to me, is a critical question. It seems my view is different from theirs.

 

When we first started homeschooling nearly a decade ago, HSLDA was promoted through our homeschooling group. We live in an easy state, yet they (the group) wanted us to have this "protection". As I began to explore HSLDA I realized they were not what they sold themselves to be. Many times they yell fire and they are the ones who lit the blaze.

 

They use inflammatory language and leave out "details" that truly state the facts of some cases. The more I looked, the more I see how they worked to create an us vs. them mentality between homeschoolers and the government. In some cases the homeschooling laws listed on their site leave out important details on the homeschooling law for a state. Well you used to be able to pull up the state law info without signing up on their site. I just went to look and apparently now I have to leave my information even as a non-member. Sorry.

 

Anyway, one important detail to our state, which requires hours, is that they count the new year starting on July 1. This was not on the HSLDA site many years ago and the last time I checked, which was probably about two years ago. It's a detail, it could be an important detail if you were called to confirm your hours for the years.

 

I really have enough stress in my life, I don't need an organization with an agenda claiming to have my back or speak for me and assign my values because I'm a homeschooler . I don't need to wade through "urgent" claims of a forest fire when there is only a campfire.

[nmoira]

 

I don't need to wade through "urgent" claims of a forest fire when there is only a campfire.

Or the headlights of passing cars.

[elegantlion]

Or the headlights of passing cars.

 

:driving::cheers2:

[nmoira]

:driving::cheers2:

 

:lol: I hope we're not drinking that in the car.

[Haiku]

I think it becomes increasingly important to support their work and make sure someone is keeping an eye on things for homeschoolers

 

HSLDA is not keeping an eye on things for homeschoolers. They are on the lookout for things that they feel are contradictory to their religious and political beliefs, whether they are homeschool-related or not. They do not speak for homeschoolers; they speak for a certain subset of religious and political beliefs.

 

because who else has our backs

 

We should have our own backs.

 

HSLDA is proscriptive, not proactive.

 

Tara

[elegantlion]

:lol: I hope we're not drinking that in the car.

 

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

[Guest sophiaclassical]

 

 

 

Below is a link with an extensive explanation of the binding of international treaties.

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag14_user.html

[MrsMe]

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:

[nmoira]

 

 

Below is a link with an extensive explanation of the binding of international treaties.

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag14_user.html

 

Can you apply its content to the discussion at hand? Or otherwise respond to any of the detailed discussion that has taken place so far?

 

:tongue_smilie:

(Wondering if this will be further escalated to font size "6"...)

Edited November 11, 2012 by nmoira

[Slartibartfast]

 

 

Below is a link with an extensive explanation of the binding of international treaties.

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag14_user.html

 

Read your own link please

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag18_user.html

[stripe]

(Wondering if this will be further escalated to font size "6"...)

 

Nothing is worth escalating to a size 6, goodness!

 

According to some other post I wrote, they also believe it's a moral imperative to spend more on war than children. I read that somewhere.

 

But what's more eye opening is this speech by Farris from 2006, "Protecting Parental Rights: Why It Should Be a Priority." And I think it clears the whole matter up:

 

Now, there is no other issue that I outlined in my parade of possible priorities—taxes, Commerce Clause, property rights, abortion, homosexual issues—there is no other issue that has the same level of political viability as the protection of parental rights.

 

That’s not to say we should not work on these other issues—especially on abortion and the marriage issue. Of course we should work on those issues. But these issues have been with us for some time and the opportunity for success in the short run seems implausible.

 

Secondly, I am not saying that the protection of parental rights should be the number one priority for every political group in America. I am talking to this audience. The homeschooling movement relies more heavily on a robust theory of parental rights than any other group in the nation. We have the most at stake. This is our core. This is not peripheral in any way to our mission. Our reason for existence as a movement is to protect the right of parents to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

 

When I present this issue to other groups, usually I am not going to try to convince them that this should be their number one issue. If they conclude that it is a priority, that is good enough. We want their help.

 

But this is our baby—literally. If we do not take the lead in protecting the right of parents to raise godly children—who will?

 

Third, the reason I think this must be our priority is this is an issue that has received the blessing of God.....

 

Now if we turn that question of “What is God blessing?” to analyze what should be our own priority, the question would be asked like this: What is the evidence that God has been blessing the issue protecting the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children? What’s our evidence?

 

Well, people have been working on tax reform for years. No progress.

 

Judicial reform. No progress.

 

Abortion. No substantial progress.

 

Homosexuality. We’re going in the wrong direction.

 

But when we look at homeschooling, we see incredible blessing. Twenty-five years ago, homeschooling was for all intents and purposes illegal. Today, for all intents and purposes homeschooling is legal. Ten years ago, for all intents and purposes social workers were never required to obey the Fourth Amendment. That has radically shifted and we’re on the path to total victory on that particular issue.

 

God is protecting the rights of parents to raise and educate children.

 

I know for a fact that there are going to be some in Washington, D.C. who complain that a parents’ rights constitutional amendment will distract from their efforts to win a marriage amendment. And maybe there is a little truth in that. I think it is possible to win them both if you handle it correctly, but that is a discussion for another day. Let’s assume they are right.

 

But now let’s play out the scenario of what happens if we lose.

 

If we lose on homosexual marriage, evil would be released in greater measure in our nation. The definition of the family would be eroded and immoral living arrangements would proliferate. Evil that is present today would get worse.

 

However, if we lose on parental rights, we lose the ability to raise our own children in righteousness. We lose the ability to do good.

 

In the one case, evil will grow. In the other case, good will be curtailed.

 

I don’t know about you, but if I am forced to choose, I will choose my ability to train my children in the truth as the most important priority in my life. I do not want any more evil. But if I’ve got to choose between stopping a stranger from doing evil, and the ability to raise my own children in righteousness, I will never abandon my chance to do good with my own children.

 

Now, I happen to believe that if we build the political team to win a parents’ rights amendment, we can turn that around to address other additional matters, including marriage, abortion, and a lot more.

 

http://www.hslda.org/parentalrights/speech20061206.asp

 

Also in the speech he has a "compelling" discussion of his meeting to discuss China's one child policy, which ends with the statement that their abortion rate is 1-2%, and therefore not much of a concern since "our abortion rate" is more than 10 times that. (I am surprised Farris has had any abortions, frankly.) But where did he even get these numbers?! Every other source suggests the abortion rate is vastly higher than 1-2%, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8175864.stm#graph .

Edited November 11, 2012 by stripe

[Catwoman]

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.

 

When HSLDA was first created, it seemed like it was going to be a great organization that would help a lot of homeschoolers, and apparently they did help quite a few families.

 

However, as time passed, things changed, and now the HSLDA is nothing more than a way for some wackadoodle extremists to raise money for their questionable political causes.

 

And have you ever gone through the process of applying for membership? Apparently, they ask for all sorts of personal information, much of which has nothing to do with homeschooling.

 

I'm not suggesting that we don't need the kind of organization that the HSLDA originally purported to be -- if someone started one that didn't have a political agenda, I would be one of the first people in line to join.

[kalanamak]

... telling us what the regulations say in English so that we can be in compliance.

 

... make sure someone is keeping an eye on things for homeschoolers, because who else has our backs?

 

Our state organization has the laws in simpler English (I would argue that the laws ARE written in English). Our state organization is quite vocal, even more-so than I would like, being rabidly anti- umbrella school.

 

I'm more interested in knowing who has our back against the "purists" (slippery slope people) in homeschooling. As is common, those with the most fear and fury spend the time and energy in running/ruining it for the rest of us.

[Mrs Mungo]

Our state organization has the laws in simpler English (I would argue that the laws ARE written in English). Our state organization is quite vocal, even more-so than I would like, being rabidly anti- umbrella school.

 

I'm more interested in knowing who has our back against the "purists" (slippery slope people) in homeschooling. As is common, those with the most fear and fury spend the time and energy in running/ruining it for the rest of us.

 

Agreed.

[goldberry]

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

 

 

:eek::eek: Wow, I haven't been too interested in HSLDA, but I think this told me everything I needed to know.

Edited November 11, 2012 by coloradoperkins

[cathmom]

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.

 

Probably also why I received a Vision Forum catalog in the mail yesterday. :glare: Like I would ever buy anything from them!

 

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.

 

Yes, some of us manage to raise nice, well-behaved children without spanking at all. Take away my "right" to spank my children? Fine, it won't change my life at all.