Created in 1989, the Convention (often abbreviated as the “CRC”) has a number of laudable goals and features. It has been ratified by 193 countries around the world. The only two UN member states which have NOT ratified it are Somalia and the United States (which proponents of the treaty often cite as something that should be embarrassing to the United States).
There is much in this treaty which is admirable and non-controversial. There are some parts of it which are simply innocuous. And there are some parts of it which pro-family and pro-homeschooling advocates in the United States find objectionable.
But why all the hubbub over a UN Convention? Isn’t this simply a non-binding statement of principles?
For many countries, that might be the case (and probably explains why many of the 193 have ratified – for them, ratification has no practical effect on their own laws and practices).
But the effect of ratifying a treaty in the United States is different, because of Article VI of the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment.
Article VI (often called the “Supremacy Clause”) states, in part:
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; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Supremacy Clause makes all treaties ratified by the US Senate binding in all Federal AND in all State courts. Which means that the United States Senate should be very careful when it votes to ratify a treaty. It also helps explain why the ratification of a treaty requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate – Treaty ratification is akin to amending the Constitution, and comes close to it in its wide-reaching consequences and significance.
Non-Controversial Sections of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child include the prohibitions on kidnapping, child labor, child prostitution, and using children as soldiers. Ironically, the United States HAS signed and ratified both of the optional protocols which have been appended to the CRC: one on the use of children in military conflicts and one which prohibits child pornography.
Children’s “Rights” are the issue, and whether those rights may be asserted against parents
The problematic parts of the CRC are in articles 13-17 which enumerate children’s rights which all parties to the CRC agree to recognize. These rights are described in legal language which is at times ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so. They include the right to freedom of expression, the right to receive information, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, a right to personal privacy and a right to access mass media. And here is where the issues arise. It would be one thing to assert that a child has these enumerated rights and that children must be protected from any attempt by the state to interfere with them. But the CRC leaves open and unresolved whether a child has these rights and can appeal to the state to prevent any of these rights from being abridged by parents. Given the Constitutional status afforded treaties and the social activism of parts of the legal community, it is quite probable that these rights would be raised in legal proceedings against parents by advocates acting in the name of children. If the CRC intended to protect children from any abridging of these rights by the State (but not by parents), then it should have said so. Because it does not limit its applicability to actions against the states, in the US Courts, it would inevitably be invoked in cases of conflicts between parents and children, with the result that parental authority would be eviscerated and children would be free to make dangerous and/or inappropriate choices, with parents forbidden from interfering. To take but one example, if parents decided to enroll a child in a religious school, the child could object and bring action citing the CRC and veto the parents’ decision.
Ratification of the treaty would provide the basis for the state to intervene in parenting decisions regarding education, media, and friends. It would radically undermine the rights of parents to direct the care, upbringing and education of their children.
Outlawing corporal punishment
The CRC has been repeatedly interpreted by the UN, by its committees, and in other judicial settings as requiring ratifying governments to “prohibit all forms of violence, including corporal punishment, in the upbringing of children.”
For some, this is simply one more reason to support ratification. But the overwhelming majority of parents in the US believe that corporal punishment by parents is a legitimate form of discipline. In any event, the definition of child abuse and neglect is currently made by state law, interpreted by state courts. Ratification of the CRC would, in effect, be the enactment of a federal ban on corporal punishment. No matter how you feel about the issue, federalizing it will have terrible consequences for families.
The CRC also establishes a UN committee and requires ratifying states to submit a report on implementation of the CRC within two years and every five years thereafter. The Committee may request additional information, review, and comment on States’ reports, but it does not appear to have any enforcement authority. I view the Committee as, at worst, an annoyance. Various states have already received chiding comments from the Committee, but they have little practical effect, other than in the court of public opinion (which is to say hardly at all). Of far greater concern is potential enforcement actions of the US federal courts, acting with the authorization of the US Constitution’s attribution of legal authority to all ratified treaties.
I would encourage everyone interested to read the text for themselves, paying particular attention to articles 13-17.
There is also an interesting article in the Emory International Law Review by Prof. David M. Smolin of the Cumberland Law School, which identifies the issues pretty clearly. Prof. Smolin believes the objections to Articles 13-17 could be overcome by the adoption of “reservations” by the US Senate, and argues that the treaty is not self-executing and therefore should not cause concern. The treaty is NOT self-executing, but the US Constitution spells out the mechanism by which treaties become supreme law which must be followed by all federal and state judges. I think Prof. Smolin has missed this point.
The Democrats stepped slightly aside from the school house door after a $100 million arm twisting by US Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and allowed the charter bill to pass. Final vote 79 yes, 15 no.
Well, some local folks finally got together and are throwing their own TEA Party! Whoo Hoo! Now, since I don’t have an official logo thingy, this picture will have to do!
Where: Selmer City Park - Selmer, Tennessee
When: 27 June 2009, 1:00 till ??
Why: To put it quite bluntly, PEOPLE ARE FED UP!
If, and when, I get more information, I will be sure to share it!
The confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor is almost a sure thing. Who do we have to blame for this confirmation? The GOP, of course. Because of years of weak leadership, the GOP has put itself into a position where there are powerless to stop anything.
This saga began in 2003. In 2003, the Democrats in the Senate were allowed to bash another Hispanic judicial nominee, Miguel Estrada. He was nominated to an appeals court vacancy and the Dems filibustered that appointment. Because the GOP did not parade him out every day to show the “racism” of the Dems, any opposition they show to Sotomayor, even on policies and prior rulings, will be called racist by the Left and Media.
So, until the GOP grows a backbone, we will face more and more of these extreme leftist appointments and policies, destined to destroy America.
The show is hosted by Babe Huggett (who blogs at TheRealityCheck.org) and Warner Todd Huston (who is a prolific blogger and owner of StopTheACLU).
You can click on the Life, Liberty link to go to the show’s homepage and listen to the show on your PC, streamed over the internet.
Hosts Babe Huggett and Warner Todd Huston discuss and examine current political events, put them in historical context and follow trends to their logical conclusions through a conservative, Christian viewpoint. Phone in comments from listeners always welcome! Call-in Number: (347) 237-4040
Hosts Babe Huggett & Warner Todd Huston dig deep & analyze the news with their usual insightful and historical approach all the while being as politically irreverent as possible! It’s time to spend your Summer 2009 vacation cramming & jamming with home schooling advocates, Kay Brooks & Rob Shearer, as they educate us tonight about the deliberate persecution of home schooled graduates, the dumbing down of students in government propaganda factories a.k.a. public schools & the erosion of educational liberty in Tennessee in particular & the USA in general.
As Second Circuit Judge Sonya Sotomayor moves into the vetting process for a seat on the nation’s highest court, volumes of opinions both for and against Sotomayor have flooded the media. Long before Justice Souter’s official announcement that he would be leaving the Supreme Court, we knew that certain rules to name his successor were already in place. We knew, for instance, that the nominee would not be a male, would not be a typically middle class white American, and, most disturbing, would not embrace a philosophy of impartial justice.
The Federal Reserve Act was signed into law in 1913 by Woodrow Wilson to establish a private, centralized banking system for the United States. Charged with the lofty goal of ending recessions, bank panics and depressions which its predecessors, the First (1791) and Second (1816) Banks of the United States, the Free Banking Era (1837-1862) and a national banking system (1862-1913) had not been able to accomplish. A particularly severe economic crisis in 1907 prompted politicians and wealthy bankers to take another run at creating a powerful centralized national banking system and in 1913, the Federal Reserve came into being. In its nearly 100-year history, the Federal Reserve has been no more successful at achieving its goals than its predecessors. The market crash of 1929 and our current economic crisis are the hallmarks of a fatally flawed banking system.
Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings spent $24,730 in taxpayer money last year to lease a 2008 luxury Lexus hybrid sedan. Ohio Rep. Michael Turner expensed a $1,435 digital camera. Eni Faleomavaega, the House delegate from American Samoa, bought two 46-inch Sony TVs.
The expenditures were legal, properly accounted for and drawn from allowances the U.S. government grants to lawmakers. Equipment purchased with office expense accounts must be returned to the House or the federal General Services Administration when a lawmaker leaves office.
Do you get an extra ‘allowance’ from your boss. Some folks might get use of a company car, for the advertising, or just cuz, but I don’t know of anyone who ever received funds above and beyond their salary to buy big honkin’ TVs, or a ridiculously overpriced camera. These people get a salary of $174,000 a year! They shouldn’t be getting a dime, except for maybe travel expenses, and even then, 99.9% of them are already rich enough, they don’t need any salary or perks to pay their bills. So, why is it that we are buying them new toys? If ol’ Alcee really has to have a hybrid, I’m fairly sure he could actually BUY one for close to $24K. It won’t be a Lexus, but then, not all of us can afford a Lexus, of any kind.
The Senate and House release volumes of the reimbursement requests for these allowances, but do not make them available electronically. A Wall Street Journal review of thousands of pages of these records for 2008 expenses showed most lawmaker spending flowed to areas such as staff salaries, travel, office rent and supplies, and printing and mailing.
Among those who have studied the issue of military voting, there seems to be little disagreement that there is a problem. While there’s no agreement as to precisely many how many members of the military are denied the right to vote, the number is significant. One recent estimate by the Congressional Research Service says that at least one-quarter of the absentee ballots requested by members of the Armed Services are not ultimately counted. And note that this figure does not consider the problem of servicemen and -women who are unable to file an official request for a ballot. Military retirees say that many are unaware that they have a right to request an absentee ballot, or are unable to gain access to a computer or telephone to do so.
The House Committee on Administration recently heard testimony from on the problems faces by our men and women in the military. Retired Gunnery Sergeant Jessie Jane Duff described the problem this way:
Here’s the deal Tennessee, none of your legislators have signed on to this bill as co-sponsors. Go here to read the rest of this post.
It’s in the news again.
