Posted on 05/26/2006 10:44:18 PM PDT by peggybac
U.N. treaty conferring rights to children could make homeschooling illegal in the U.S. even though the Senate has not ratified it, a homeschooling association warns.
Michael Farris, chairman and general counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association, or HSLDA, believes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child could be binding on U.S. citizens because of activist judges, reports LifeSite News.
Farris said that according to a new interpretation of "customary international law," some U.S. judges have ruled the convention applies to American parents.
"In the 2002 case of Beharry v. Reno, one federal court said that even though the convention was never ratified, it still has an impact on American law," Farris explained, according to LifeSiteNews. "The fact that virtually every other nation in the world has adopted it has made it part of customary international law, and it means that it should be considered part of American jurisprudence."
The convention places severe limitations on a parent's right to direct and train their children, Farris contends.
The HSLDA produced a report in 1993 showing that under Article 13, parents could be subject to prosecution for any attempt to prevent their children from interacting with material they deem unacceptable.
Under Article 14, children are guaranteed "freedom of thought, conscience and religion," which suggests they have a legal right to object to all religious training. Further, under Article 15, the child has a right to "freedom of association."
"If this measure were to be taken seriously, parents could be prevented from forbidding their child to associate with people deemed to be objectionable companions," the HSLDA report explained.
Farris pointed out that in 1995 the United Kingdom was deemed out of compliance with the convention "because it allowed parents to remove their children from public school sex-education classes without consulting the child."
Farris argues, according to LifeSiteNews, that "by the same reasoning, parents would be denied the ability to homeschool their children unless the government first talked with their children and the government decided what was best. This committee would even have the right to determine what religious teaching, if any, served the child's best interest."
Offering solutions, Farris suggests Congress use its power to define customary law and modify the jurisdiction of federal courts.
"Congress needs to address this issue of judicial tyranny by enacting legislation that limits the definition of customary international law to include only provisions of treaties that Congress has ratified," he said.
Farris also suggested Congress could pass a constitutional amendment stating explicitly that no provision of any international agreement can supersede the constitutional rights of an American citizen.
He pointed out two such amendments have been proposed in Congress.
Finally, he says specific threats to parental rights can be solved by "putting a clear parents' rights amendment into the black and white text of the United States Constitution."
you can't provide for yourself or protect yourself. how dare you try to teach your children? /s
And a ping for you...
TOO LATE!
TT
Down with the UN.
and how many battalions does the UN command on US soil?
DO IT NOW
He pointed out two such amendments have been proposed in Congress.
DO IT NOW
Finally, he says specific threats to parental rights can be solved by "putting a clear parents' rights amendment into the black and white text of the United States Constitution."
DO IT NOW
write you congresscritters and senators NOW
Good point. Thank you.
We need to get the Dept. of Edu. GONE.
Immaterial. How many military people would intervene to defend the rights of a citizen in conflict with a judgment from a duly constituted court, however bizarre it might be?
Enforcement is by police, which are progressing into "regional police." Support your local sheriff. It's your last line of defense.
They have plans written to put all military of every country under the command of the UN - or troops would no longer be our sovereign military but belong to and be under the control of the UN...
Also, the UN has a gun control law ready to go that, put side by with Hitler's gun control law - is almost verbatim.
Also, the UN is working on a law that would require every child, upon the hour of it's birth, to be registered with the UN - and on and on
seems to me the Constitution already explicitly addresses this:
ARTICLE IV
...
Section 3....
2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.
Section 4. Republican form of government guaranteed. Each State to be protected.
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union, a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.
...
...
ARTICLE VI
...
2. 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.
PING
I have plans to conquer the Martians.
so?
they have no hope in hell of enacting these plans.
see post 12.
all of our soldiers swear an oath. if it has not changed since my day, it requires the soldier to protect and defend the CONSTITUTION from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
this UN nonsense, if they tried to enact it, would be a clear and obvious attack on the sovereign and republican form of government the Constitution details, as excerpted above.
QED - no soldier could obey the UN and his oath.
and how many battalions does Mexico command on US soil?
The US Senate already agrees with the CFR, what makes you think they would disagree with the UN?
Well Private New tried to fight UN command/controll and he got courtmarshalled.
damn martians, they piss me off sometimes too :)
the fact that this, and many other UN nonsense, remains unratified by that self-same Senate could be considered such an clew.
iirc, that was in Bosnia, yes?
what has that to do with the soldier's oath, being outside the US and not related to US sovereignty on US territory?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.