like mother, like daughter... Thuvia:
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."
the legions of liberal "its for the children" do-gooders, and activist judges--and the state and local police.
Lawrence v Texas--constitutional right to sodomy---International law trumps US law. This is the new reality.
but their chicks are cute, and age slowly - especially the daughters of Helium.
We all remember Michael New - just one part of his letter to his chain of command:
On August 21, 1995, my seniors in the U.S. Army chain of command informed me that my unit and I would soon be ordered to significantly alter our uniform by sewing a United Nations patch on my right shoulder and wearing the blue beret and/or helmet of the U.N. These are important insignia. If they were unimportant, then I would not have been threatened with courts-martial, imprisonment, or less than dishonorable discharge when I expressed my reservations about wearing them. I interpret the wearing of a uniform, or the accoutrements of a uniform, as a sign of allegiance and faithfulness to the authority or power so signified, or which issues that uniform. I am an American citizen who was recruited for and voluntarily joined the U.S. Army to serve as an American soldier. I am not a citizen of the United Nations. I am not a United Nations Fighting Person. I have never taken an oath to the United Nations, but I have taken the required oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.
http://www.mikenew.com/
Every LEO in the country takes such oaths. I'm not seeing much sign that they understand, much less abide by the implications.
It's one thing to have the UN order the soldier and have him disobey. It's quite another for a Federal judge and/or the DOJ to issue an unconstitutional order based upon an inference derived from an unratified treaty and then ask that soldier to intervene against police enforcement of the order.
Sorry to sound cynical, but what difference does an oath make any more? Remember Waco?
We've got States enforcing provisions of Kyoto. We've got judges ruling on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We've got environazi bureaucrats defrauding people out of their land (usually with authority derived from treaty law as well)...
Oaths you say?
dude, pics please... :)
IIRC Pvt New refuse to take an oath of allegience to the UN, and the US courtmartialed him. They placed his entire unit under a UN commander, and make him wear the UN uniform. He is still trying to clear his name. And this was BEFORE the unit deployed.
The last thing the UN wants is a generation of kids who can think for themselves.
Reagan promised too - but was unsuccessful -
There was a law passed way back when - - that prohibited a National Education Dept. on the grounds that it could become a tool to feed pupils propaganda that could sway them in one direction - politically - over another.
They foresaw the danger of a behemoth that could reach and influence all of our children - It's in the Pierce Doctrine, somewhere, (I'm so tired, my eyes are closing, gotta get to bed!) along with the Constitutional right to choose our childrens schools:
http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/hinckley/v2/hoskins.htm (scroll down to "....school choice"
The Constitutional Issues Surrounding School Choice Evolution of Cases Arguments over the constitutionality of school vouchers began with the decision in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925). In Pierce two schools challenged Oregon’s law of compulsory public education for all students under the age of 16.
In Pierce the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, parents had the constitutional right to choose whether their children attended a public, private non-sectarian, or religious school.
Justice James C. McReynolds when offering the opinion for the Court agreed that the parents’ rights were being violated. “The fundamental theory of liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters 1925, 535). In Pierce the Supreme Court re-affirmed ....
CAn't stay awake.......;o(
Look arounf; its happening.
IIRC, he refused to wear that uniform, which is why he was court martialed. He isn't winning in Federal court either.
I can't either...but thanks for the info...will read in the a.m. :)
that's why we, as a last resort, can enact the essense of the second amendment.
should that day come in my days, I call dibs on that damned pretzel-barrel anti-gun statue on the UN campus - its bronze cries out to be melted down and recast as drop-forged cannister.
bump until tomorrow
If I live long enough Prout I'll be there watching your six; even if I'm in a frickin wheel chair. I've about had it with this crap. My dad used to lecture what was going to happen back in the mid 60s when I was just a teen. About 90% of what he told me then has come to pass and I'm just waiting for the rest to happen. I wonder how many folks will go down fighting. Unfortunately, like Michael Savage said the other night, I think US may be past the point of being able to save itself. As a sovereign nation were done.
well, we need to get the UN out of U.S. soil. move them to the EU since they are the noisy ones. I can't believe we fund that bunch of whores so they can critisize and condemn us every day.. we need to get the UN out of America.
like mother, like daughter... Thuvia:
This is why the 2nd Amendment is inviolable.
This is why we must elect leaders WE CAN TRUST to tell the U.N.,take a flying hike.
Now who do we trust anymore, I can think of 19 I don't.
I would agree but it will never happen. Its stays too far under the radar for Joe Sixpack to take it as a serious threat and only a few politicians have the balls to say anything against it.
Another one of those crazy "UN threatens to...." threads?
These silly scare-tactic campaigns only end up hurting the credibility of those raising the alarm.
1. The UN is not going to impose a tax on Americans
2. The UN is not going to ban guns in America
3. The UN is not going to make homeschooling in America illegal
The UN is a foul broken toilet and it is overflowing with turds.
The UN couldn't successfully run a parking garage.
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.