U.N. making homeschooling illegal?

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 5/27/06

[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."

[DaveTesla]

Roper v. Simmons, No. 03-633
Argued October 13, 2004.

DPIC Summary:

Majority Opinion
By a vote of 5-4, the U.S. Supreme Court on March 1, 2005 held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed.
 
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority (Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens, JJ.) stated:

When a juvenile offender commits a heinous crime, the State can exact forfeiture of some of the most basic liberties, but the State cannot extinguish his life and his potential to attain a mature understanding of his own humanity.

The Court reaffirmed the necessity of referring to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual.  The Court reasoned that the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of states, the infrequent use of the punishment even where it remains on the books, and the consistent trend toward abolition of the juvenile death penalty demonstrated a national consensus against the practice.  The Court determined that today our society views juveniles as categorically less culpable than the average criminal.

Reliance on Atkins
The Court outlined the similarities between its analysis of the constitutionality of executing juvenile offenders and the constitutionality of executing the mentally retarded.  Prior to 2002, the Court had refused to categorically exempt mentally retarded persons from capital punishment. Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989).  However, in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Court held that standards of decency had evolved in the 13 years since Penry and that a national consensus had formed against such executions, demonstrating that the execution of the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment.

Before this historic ruling, the Court concluded in 1989 in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989), that the execution of 16- and 17-year-old offenders was not constitutionally barred.  The Court now concludes that since Stanford, a national consensus has formed against the execution of juvenile offenders, and the practice violates society’s “evolving standards of decency.”  The Court overruled its decision in Stanford, thereby setting the minimum age for eligibility for the death penalty at 18.

The Court explained that the primary criterion for determining whether a particular punishment violates society’s evolving standards of decency is objective evidence of a national consensus as expressed by legislative enactments and jury practices. The majority opinion found significant that 30 states prohibit the juvenile death penalty, including 12 that have rejected the death penalty altogether.  The Court counted the states with no death penalty, pointing out that “a State’s decision to bar the death penalty altogether of necessity demonstrates a judgment that the death penalty is inappropriate for all offenders, including juveniles.  The Court further noted that juries sentenced juvenile offenders to death only in rare cases and the execution of juveniles is infrequent.  The Court found a consistent trend toward abolition of the practice of executing juveniles and ruled that the impropriety of executing juveniles has gained wide recognition.

In addition to considering evidence of a national consensus as expressed by legislative enactments and jury practices, the court recognized that it must also apply its own independent judgment in determining whether a particular punishment is disproportionately severe.  When ruling that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified as among the worst offenders, the Court found significant that juveniles are vulnerable to influence, and susceptible to immature and irresponsible behavior.  In light of juveniles’ diminished culpability, neither retribution nor deterrence provides adequate justification for imposing the death penalty.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said:

Retribution is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity.

International Confirmation
The Court further noted that that the execution of juvenile offenders violated several international treaties, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and stated that the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty provides confirmation for the Court’s own conclusion that the death penalty is disproportional punishment for offenders under 18.

Concurring Opinion
Justice Stevens wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Ginsburg, stating:

Perhaps even more important than our specific holding today is our reaffirmation of the basic principle that informs the Court’s interpretation of the Eighth Amendment. If the meaning of that Amendment had been frozen when it was originally drafted, it would impose no impediment to the execution of 7-year-old children today.

O'Connor's Dissent
Justice O’Connor dissented, criticizing the Missouri Supreme Court for failing to follow the precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Stanford (before the Supreme Court overruled Stanford, the Missouri court in this case concluded that standards of decency had evolved such that executing juveniles was no longer constitutional).  O’Connor agreed that objective evidence presented in Simmons was similar to that presented in Atkins, but while there was no support for the practice of executing the mentally retarded, at least eight states had considered and adopted legislation permitting the execution of 16- and 17-year-old offenders.  O’Connor argued that the difference in maturity between adults and juveniles was neither universal nor significant enough to justify a rule excluding juveniles from the death penalty.  Justice O’Connor did recognize the relevance of international law, and expressly rejected Justice Scalia’s contention that international law has no place in evaluating Eighth Amendment claims.

Scalia's Dissent
Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist, also dissented, arguing that the Court improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the people in outlawing juvenile executions.  He criticized the majority for counting non-death penalty states toward a national consensus against juvenile executions.  Scalia also rejected the Court’s use of international law to confirm its finding of a national consensus, stating that “‘Acknowledgement’ of foreign approval has no place in the legal opinion of this Court . . .”  Like Justice O’Connor, Scalia criticized the Court for failing to admonish the Missouri Court for its “flagrant disregard” of the Court’s ruling in Stanford.

The Court’s ruling in Roper v. Simmons affects 72 juvenile offenders in 12 states.

[Lancey Howard]

I agree that many judges, including some Supreme Court justices, are corrupt to the core, and I also realize that Congress is too gutless to do anything about them. But I believe that things are improving thanks to our Republican President. Bush is making a lot of very good nominations and getting them confirmed.

[zip]

ping

[tortoise]

Bush is making a lot of very good nominations and getting them confirmed.

That is about the only thing I will grant Bush these days. The rest of what has gone on in Washington DC is a giant steaming pile no matter how you slice it.

Clarence Thomas is the model justice IMO, and we would do very well to have many more like him. Fortunately, Roberts and Alito are at least in the ballpark. While I know many Republicans like Scalia, he has a weakness for legislating arbitrary morality from the bench that I do not like. Scalia is conservative, but Thomas actually seems to grok the original intent of the Founding Fathers, something I appreciate intensely these days. Scalia can get "creative" with his interpretation of the Constitution when an issue runs against his personal beliefs, damn the consequences to precedent.

[WKUHilltopper]

I'm sick of our country sucking up to these maggots! And I'm tired of my tax dollars paying for these crooked jerks! The politicians are too spineless to be outraged at this lastest attack.

[DaveTesla]

All it is going to take is the election of a Democrat
House and A Democrat President and it's over.
We are in deep trouble.

The UN is just another arm (pit) of the Evil plot.
One of the other tentacles owns the Democratic party.

I cannot stand the way people back stab the president in the back.
They think we have problems with immigration?
Wait till they see what is around the corner.
The Marxist's will suck the life out of us and bankrupt the
country (morally and financially).
I don't care what president Bush does, I would craw through
broken glass to vote and keep these people out of office.

[Lesforlife]

Is it considered gauche to use the F word
in matters related to the U (useless) N (nothing
they say should be considered?)

[DaveTesla]

There not spineless.
There part of it.

[panaxanax]

Sounds like we're about the same age. My Dad taught me the same things and like you pointed out, 90% has come true. I miss his wisdom and ability to foresee the future, but am almost happy that he is no longer around to see the rapid deterioration of his beloved country.

At the time (mid 60's) Russia was the big threat and Dad said Russia is not the one to worry about, "watch out for China" he said over and over again. He was a strong Goldwater supporter and strong critic of the UN. If alive, he would certainly be a vocal and active FReeper!

There will never be another generation of men that can equal that of our fathers. Guys our age try to keep the patriotism and love for America alive, but we have become suppressed by limits on free speech and chastised as being "Conservatives", "Radical Right-Wingers", "Right-Wing Conspirators" and the like.

I seriously doubt that there are enough of us left to actually change the tide of globalism and the NWO. I, like you, will never surrender to the U.N. and will adamantly continue to preach freedom and American sovereignty to the bitter end. There is still hope if we vote the RINO's out and support the Constitution Party with full and aggressive vigor.

Keep spreading the good word.

[nathanbedford]

Lancey:

Normally I would agree with your observations, but since living here in Europe I have experienced personally, albeit anecdotally, an unprovoked and spontaneous wave of indignation against the American practice of homeschooling. The articulated reason the Europeans object to American homeschooling is that it prevents the child from being "socialized."

When one pursues the discussion, it appears that a powerful reason, which the European is reluctant to articulate, is grounded in a surprisingly virulent anti-religiosity, especially a prejudice against the American brand of Protestant Evangelicalism as personified by George Bush.

The Church-less German is viscerally afraid of red state Protestantism. He actually believes that George Bush makes his decisions about going to war, for example, by hearing supernatural voices.

I believe the European pan nationalist sees the US as the greatest impediment to world peace through world government and American Christian fundamentalism as the greatest impediment to American participation in world gevernment.

Two presidential elections ago, the one-worlder's in America actually got more votes than we did. In the last presidential election, they missed controlling the presidency by only 60,000 votes in Ohio. Their prospects look very very good for 2008.

You are quite right when you say the UN will not be able to impose a direct tax upon us, or directly ban guns, no, the likelihood is we will do these things to ourselves, citing the United Nations as a justification and authority for these things.

Once the left in America succeeds in obtaining a ratification for its rule from the current wave of illegal immigrants, (there is more than one jurisdiction around the country which is contemplating extending the vote to illegal immigrants), the game is over, our constitutional rights will have become mere impediments to the left's march to doing good around the world.

I find these two treatments very interesting:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1635368/posts

http://www.newtotalitarians.com/PsychicIronCagePartII.html

[DaveTesla]

"American Christian fundamentalism as the greatest impediment to American participation in world government."

Because as a Christan I know that a one world government
will not change human nature.
It will bring on unelected Tyrants whom murder and pillage at will.

Any one who can read a bible knows the plight of Jesus and his
disciples and what they foretell.

Babylon promises peace on earth and what they will bring
is hell on earth.
As if a global government will end the wickedness of men.
One only has to study the corruption of the UN and
there involvement with Danfur / Sudan and the theft of food money
from a genocidal maniac in Iraq along with slave / sex
slave trading to understand this.
Name one conflict that the UN has solved.
We have been warned.

[DaveTesla]

I presume you understand why the left are attacking the Jews
and Christan's.
The left's plans are on a direct collision course with their
core beliefs and values.
In fact they are the antithesis.

[nnn0jeh]

ping

[tgambill]

Tri-Lateral Commission is on track and completing their agenda.

[DH]

Don't worry about it.  If your child is already attending public school (a new-world communist "one world" indoctrination center) they already comply with the UN mandates.

You need to insure that your public school also has placed fencing around the school and armed guards posted to keep the mind-numbed and brain-washed children in the compound until full indoctrination for the day has been performed.

One word of warning, be careful of what you say at home because your child may be interrogated at the indoctrination center about their parents who may be in violation of the center's thought rules.

Now, if you have home schooled children, it's only a matter of time before they come to get you.  You too, will be living in 1984 and learning the truth from the Ministry of Truth, learning doublespeak and newspeak just like the UN and the indoctrinators teach.

[BlackElk]

Yes, indeed. DO IT NOW in all these cases.

[Hardastarboard]

Support your local sheriff. It's your last line of defense.

Not in most major metropolitan areas, where they're Democrat political hacks and nothing matters but their political career, which they've been grooming for years (see: Elliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York for a similar example). They're just as likely to be the ones ordering the raids for "contraband" in your home.

[Millicent_Hornswaggle]

How in the world do children know what's in their best interest? Have these people ever seen real children? Because a real child has no real concept of what is in his or her best interest. Their small minds revolve around the concept of what feels or tastes good. These people are idiots and no one is going to tell me I can't raise my own children. That is precisely why I chose to homeschool. It's my job to raise my children, not some moron who thinks they know better, but don't actually have children.

[DocH]

KEEP IT IN THE BLACK BABY BLUE.

[dirtstiff]

How many battalions??

The ACLU, the Teachers' Unions, and the whole DemoRAT party!!!!!