UNCRC

[Tarheel Heather]

I have gotten several e-mails about this from our local group. I haven't seen any mention of it here. Just wondering what the collective thought of this.

 

Today the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is approaching a possible ratification by the United States Senate. This treaty, as harmless as it may appear, is capable of attacking the very core of the child-parent relationship, removing parents from their central role in the growth and development of a child, and replacing them with the long arm of government supervision within the home.

 

This is from Parentalrights.org

[Harriet Vane]

This piece of the collective is horrified by the treaty and hopes it never, ever becomes a reality in this country.

[Unicorn.]

This piece of the collective is horrified by the treaty and hopes it never, ever becomes a reality in this country.

 

:iagree: :iagree: :iagree: :iagree:

 

What she said!

[MamaT]

I have been getting the e-mails from ParentalRights.org as well, and I have to say I am frightened by the articles and reports from other countries regarding this treaty.

 

How many of you have signed (electronically) the petition for a Constitutional Amendment on Parental Rights?

[Peek a Boo]

yeah, it's been discussed before ;)

 

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/search.php?searchid=1656756

 

however, since it tends to reflect a typical partisan vote, any discussion NOW would likely be considered political.

 

lots of good info in the two threads linked above.

[Parrothead]

This piece of the collective is horrified by the treaty and hopes it never, ever becomes a reality in this country.

:iagree: Yup, yup, me too.

 

I have signed the petition and I know HSLDA is working hard to get our lawmakers on board with NOT ratifying it. Other than the emails I get from them and parentalright.org I never hear anything about what is actually happening with the treaty.

[Tarheel Heather]

Didn't look back that far. We were in transit last year at that time.

 

Thanks Peek.

[hornblower]

I've never understood the uproar about this.

Canada has ratified, though not fully implemented. It hasn't affected homeschooling at all.

 

Maybe I come at this from a diff perspective as I used to work with refugees and all the various international human rights conventions are critical in trying to help people escape persecution in their nations.

[sassenach]

I've never understood the uproar about this.

Canada has ratified, though not fully implemented. It hasn't affected homeschooling at all.

 

Maybe I come at this from a diff perspective as I used to work with refugees and all the various international human rights conventions are critical in trying to help people escape persecution in their nations.

 

I believe there is something about the US constitution that gives ratified treaties more weight in our country than in others. Let me see if I can find that link..... well, I found this excerpt-

 

4. How does the United States government treat international law?

 

Article VI Section 2 of the United States Constitution makes treaties signed by the United States the law of the land—equivalent to Acts of Congress and subordinate to the text of the Constitution only. This means that international treaties are, in effect, superior to the laws of states and their judicial systems. Treaties are approved pursuant to Article II Section 2 by the President, with approval of two-thirds of the United States Senate.

 

If the Constitution is silent on a matter then treaties automatically carry the same weight as the Constitution itself. Having been protected for centuries, parental rights are now in danger of being usurped by government control simply because they are not explicitly written into the text of the Constitution.

 

 

 

5. How does the US view of international treaties differ from the rest of the world?

 

The crucial difference between the US and other countries when it comes to international law is that the US Constitution places treaties in a superior position in relation to state laws and constitutions, making the ratified treaty the law of the land. When the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child seemed poised to come before the Senate in 1995, many senators felt that it was completely incompatible with American law. Ratifying the Convention would mean imposing laws created outside of this country on citizens within this country.

[anissarobert]

The US views ratified treaties differently than other countries. If we ratify it becomes law and that law supercedes our other laws, such as state homeschooling regulations. Other countries do not have this obligation when it comes to treaties. They can ratify them and ignore them. Our courts are already using this treaty to justify decsions, even though it is not law as of yet.

 

In the interests of staying out of politics, I won't say much more, but all the information you need to understand just how scary this is can be found at www.Parentalrights.org. Sign the petition and use their materials to educate others. As homeschoolers we are in a unique positon to influence the outcome of the parental rights movement.

[anissarobert]

I see Shannon beat me to the response, and did a better job explaining it. Thanks!

[Paula in PA]

I'm not weighing in on this issue either way. I just wanted to give a link posted on another list with different information and viewpoint.

 

Church Women United

[hornblower]

I'm not weighing in on this issue either way. I just wanted to give a link posted on another list with different information and viewpoint.

 

Church Women United

 

thanks for that!

[Peek a Boo]

Great link. It will be interesting to see the comebacks to this. Fear is a great tool to many groups, obviously.

 

 

There are plenty of "comebacks" in the threads i linked above.

 

Ya know what? Hearing valid issues dismissed as "fear" gets really tiring after awhile. I'd be interested in YOUR comebacks to the issues raised on the thread I linked above. At least Volty tried ;)

 

There is a very real difference between an irrational fear, valid fear, and those who prefer to stick their head in the sand and dismiss the serious problems this could cause, ignore the impotency of this "treaty," or give it far more credit than it is due. I am not so much concerned about what the UN itself would do, but how our country --headed into a socialistic state-- would decide to interpret it. The last thing I'm willing to do is give abusive gvt agents even MORE ammo against families in the US.

As with any treaty, each U.S. state would be responsible for developing and executing its own legislation.

 

 

The biggest "myth" of all is that the UN is a competent organization that deserves our alliance, signatures, or dues.

 

but since you asked, I'll give it a shot:

 

Truth: As ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, no treaty can override the Constitution [(Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)].

 

 

Truth: The US Constitution was intentionally written to be a vague document. It's not a matter of whether the treaty would override the Constitution, but that it would be seen as LAW within the framework of the Constitution. We don't need Another Law. Our laws are already in agreement w/ this treaty.

 

Truth: As stated in the text of the Convention, any state that is a party to the CRC can nullify its ratification by providing written notification of “denunciation†to the UN Secretary General.

 

Truth: It is easier to add laws than nullify them. Legislators know this.

 

Truth: The CRC is not a “self-executing treatyâ€- it cannot be automatically implemented without legislative action. As with any treaty, each U.S. state would be responsible for developing and executing its own legislation.

 

Um, yeah.... and guess who's in charge of making sure the treaty is properly executed? If it's a national treaty, each state must abide by it, so our CONgress would be setting the standards.

 

 

Truth: The U.S. can ratify the CRC with reservations, understandings and declarations (RUDs). RUDs address specific conflicts between the U.S. Constitution and a particular Convention. Reservations modify a treaty’s provisions (e.g. if a provision of the CRC is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. can file a "reservation" to the provision, so that the provision does not apply). Understandings and Declarations help to clarify how the U.S. believes a particular provision should be interpreted. RUDs do not legally exempt the U.S. from adhering to a provision.

 

yeah --I addressed THIS in the thread linked above too: there's a link where you can read the reservations and declarations. akin to Bush signing statements. what a croc. Again: WHAT do y'all think this treaty will accomplish??

 

Truth: The Convention contains no language or directives with regard to how it should be implemented. Each country is responsible for determining how to implement this.

 

Our laws are already in agreement w/ it. So we should sign it because...????

 

Truth: The CRC does not grant the United Nations and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the international body that monitors the CRC) enforcement authority over the U.S. and its citizens. Ultimately, the Convention obligates the U.S. federal government to submit periodic reports to ensure that the provisions of the treaty are being met. This does not mark a significant change to U.S. policy. As a party to both the Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution, and Child Pornography and the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, the U.S. is required to submit periodic reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child outlining implementation and monitoring efforts.

 

This does not mark a significant change to U.S. policy...unless our wonderfully competent legislators INTERPRET it to mark a significant change to US policy. We're supposed to spend MONEY that we do not have [thank you Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama] to compile reports about things our laws are already addressing, to put before an organization that can't and won't do anything ABOUT those reports??? Logic?? Anyone? Please??

 

 

Now, i could go on and address each of their other points if you really want me too, but the sad fact is those "myths" only underscore how blatantly ineffective this treaty is. In fact, they are noticeably missing any reasons TO sign the treaty.

 

Everytime we enter into a treaty it costs a BOATLOAD of money because WE -unlike some of the other nations- will be enforcing it. Or at least, we'll set up Yet Another Cabinet Position complete w/ an inflated budget to at least look like we're enforcing it and submitting reports.

 

Sorry -- we're already in the red and this treaty will do nothing helpful for the global community and leaves legislators in this country open to wide enforcement interpretations of a vague [see all the "myths" in the link above] Treaty.

 

I would suggest anyone else wanting to comment at least take the time to read through the two threads posted above --several posters added a lot of information there that revolve around Facts and History. A healthy dose of fear and knowledge are necessary for a free country.

 

Myth: Signing this treaty will actually help children.

[Peek a Boo]

Great link. It will be interesting to see the comebacks to this. Fear is a great tool to many groups, obviously.

 

Just to make sure I'm not missing anything, i clicked over to

 

http://childrightscampaign.org/crcindex.php?sNav=getinformed_snav.php&sDat=benefit_dat.php

 

How would U.S. ratification benefit children?

 

The U.S. has some of the best programs and laws in the world to protect our children, but too many of them continue to face considerable hardships, including insufficient health care, inadequate educational opportunities, and high rates of poverty, abuse, hunger, infant mortality, incarceration, teen pregnancy, homicide, suicide, and firearm-related deaths.

 

eta: not to point out the obvious, but those "rights" should apply to every human.

 

And in the countries w/ child-rights problems that have ratified this, they have significantly reduced these problems ONLY because they signed this treaty, or becaue they were working towards it anyway?? Or did the RUDs pretty much eliminate the teeth of this treaty?

 

In the U.S., the CRC would establish a useful framework from which our leaders could create cost- effective and comprehensive policies and programs that address the specific needs of children and their families.

 

Cost-effective? back to my post above about how much money it would take just to compile these reports, much less institute a system to keep track of data......

 

By adhering to the reporting requirements contained in the CRC, our leaders would be compelled to reassess the state of children’s well-being in the U.S. and undertake crucial efforts to improve their lives.

 

How are you compelled to adhere to something through an organization that has no enforcement mechanism and doesn't require other countries to enforce their treaty either??

 

U.S. ratification would enhance our role as an international leader in human rights.

 

It would?? How?? why?? Has our ratification of other treaties enhanced our role as an international leader of human rights?

 

 

With our country's endorsement of the CRC, the world would stand united in its universally shared goal to protect and promote children’s best interests.

 

FALSE. Read the RUDs.

 

As a party to the Convention, the U.S. would be eligible to participate in the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the international body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the CRC). As a member of this Committee, the U.S. could take an active role in encouraging further progress in countries which have already ratified the Convention.

 

That encouragement can be done anyway. Countries are free to seek our input, but we are NOT able to encourage countries which have essentially dismissed their ratification of the Treaty through their RUDs.

 

 

http://childrightscampaign.org/crcindex.php?sNav=getinformed_snav.php&sDat=impact_dat.php

 

How has the CRC Impacted the World’s Children?

 

None of their examples show changes in a country that was denying human rights to the extent that people are so seriously concerned [child trafficking, etc]. In fact, it describes exactly what I was talking about: New Positions [read: More Money] being created to NATIONALLY enact policies as determined by the ratifying gvt.

 

Again: HOW does THIS TREATY actually help kids????

 

eta: and for EXTRA fun, read the studies at the bottom of the page and tell me --again-- how signing this treaty will help children in America, how the US signing it will help children globally, and that our legislators won't have a field day writing up all kinds of new laws and gvt agencies to implement and report this.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[teamturner]

Somewhat related to this is the e-alert going out from the HSLDA in regards to the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, which according to the alert is the 2nd highest position in the Justice Department. Has anyone seen this e-alert?

 

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200902060.asp

[Peek a Boo]

Somewhat related to this is the e-alert going out from the HSLDA in regards to the confirmation of the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, which according to the alert is the 2nd highest position in the Justice Department. Has anyone seen this e-alert?

 

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/200902060.asp

 

Great.

So we already have another administration wielding fear to get us into trillions of dollars in debt, and now we're looking at someone who is convinced that we are bound to everything the UN supports whether we agree w/ it or not. Yet another reason to ditch membership in the UN.