If A Tree Falls In The Forest???
Is It Just Another Log For The Fire
And The Constitution Tinder.....
HILLARY CLINTON and the ratification of the
UN CONVENTION on the RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (UNCRC)
If this treaty becomes binding on the United States,
the government would have the power to intervene
in a child's life “FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.”
Currently, the government can intervene in this fashion
only by going to court and proving that parents
have been abusive or have
neglected their children. (This standard also applies in
divorce cases on the presumption that the family unit
has been broken.) This means that
whenever the UN-dominated social services system
thought that your parental choices were not the best,
the government would have the power to override
your choices and protect your child from you.
If this treaty becomes binding, all parents would
have the same legal status as abusive parents, because
the government would have the right to override
every parental decision if it deemed the parent's choice
contrary to the child's best interest.
Specifically, spanking would be banned under the
express terms of the UNCRC. Moreover, children
would be required to be taught in a
religiously “tolerant manner”. (The American
Bar Association, which supports the treaty, has
already opined that teaching children that Jesus
is the only way to God violates the spirit and
meaning of the UNCRC.) The ability to
homeschool one's children would become not
a right, but a UN-supervised activity that could
be overturned if social services personnel believed
that it would be “best” for your child to receive
another form of education. These are not
idle speculations, but the proven result of the
UN's own interpretation of the treaty as they have
reviewed other nations' compliance with the
treaty's provisions.
Here's the difference: No other major nation
in the world has a constitutional provision that
makes a provision of a treaty automatically
part of the “highest law of the land.” This is
the Constitution's Achilles heel.
In every other nation, the UNCRC is a
political liability—if ratified in America, it would
be an enforceable and binding law.
Under existing Supreme Court precedent, a
treaty cannot override an express provision of
the U.S. Constitution. But a treaty can override a
reserved right (Missouri v. Holland). And a treaty
certainly can override either a state constitution
or state statute. Parental rights are
reserved (or implied) rights; they are not
an express provision within the Constitution.
A ratified treaty would clearly threaten
our longstanding constitutional recognition
of the liberty to raise our children. Moreover,
it would instantly override every legislative
victory ever won for homeschooling.
A federal district court has already ruled, in
two separate cases, that the UNCRC is binding
on the United States under the doctrine of
customary international law. The Supreme Court
has also begun to use the UN Convention,
not as binding authority, but
as persuasive authority in interpreting
the Constitution. For instance, in the recent case
Roper v. Simmons, the Court enacted a new
statute-like rule that no state may
impose the death penalty on juveniles—based
in part on the Court's reading of this UN Convention.
EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to
Preserve the right of parents to direct control
the upbringing and education of their children.
PLEASE Elaborate on your Seminar MONICA SANDERS
at VA Tea Party Patriots via a post............