UN "Rights of the Child" Treaty

Discussions about politics and goings on around the world. (Please keep discussions civil!)
Post Reply
User avatar
For_Narniaaa
Established Member
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 5:06 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Cair Paravel

UN "Rights of the Child" Treaty

Post by For_Narniaaa »

From parentalrights.org:
Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC:

It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.1.
Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.2.
Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.3.
The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause in Article VI.4.
The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.5.
The courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.6.
Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.7.
A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.8.
Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.9.
Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.10.
Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.11.
A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.12.
Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.13.
The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.14.
A child's “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.15.
According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.16.
Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.17.
Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.18.
Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.19.
Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.20.
I didn't see another thread about this, but it's a pretty serious issue, and is DEFINITELY against the Constitution. I'm wondering if anybody reads the Constitution anymore.

I personally believe that the people who brought you into this world should have more authority than the people who claim to run it. And this treaty is just asking to be abused. Consider the "right to leisure." More like "right to refuse to do the dishes, so that instead you can play video games that YOUR PARENTS paid for."

And if children are allowed to seek governmental review over a decision of their parents that they disagree with, how will they be disciplined? Discipline is never fun, but it is necessary. Anytime a parent grounds a child, or makes them wash the car because they talked back, the child will go crying to the government that seems to want a bunch of whiny, spoiled brats populating the country.

I know it may sound nice, the idea of children having rights, and being able to choose things for themselves, but there are too many places for this treaty to be abused. After all, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Well, I think I've made my thoughts inescapably clear. :ebiggrin: Anyone care to share theirs?
Image

"Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true knowledge." ~Proverbs 1:7

"The God of the universe---the Creator of nitrogen and pine needles, galaxies and E-minor---loves you with a radical, unconditional, self-sacrificing love." ~Francis Chan

Banner credit: arwen-undomiel.com
User avatar
Cross.eyed
Valued Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:45 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Kentucky U.S.A.

Re: UN "Rights of the Child" Treaty

Post by Cross.eyed »

This is horrendous, if the U.S. were to adopt this policy then sovereignty goes out the window.
Equally troubling is allowing children to make major life decisions without parental consent and I shutter to think at what young age they will need to be when airing their grievence.

This is the kind of socialism Obama and Co. really go for.
I am the wretch the song refers to.
User avatar
Ngakunui
Established Member
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:08 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Down South

Re: UN "Rights of the Child" Treaty

Post by Ngakunui »

Yes, it's horrible. And I absolutely hate how there is no more true sovereignty within America anymore.

But is this new? Not by any means. If you've done your research, the U.N. already influences a great amount of decisions made by government schools. It's like how they're trying to seize jurisdiction over the internet: the more they control, the less people can express their dislike towards their being controlled. Also the same thing behind the Law Of The Sea Treaty.

It's quite simple: The United Nations cares nothing of the rights of human beings, despite their "Bill of Human Rights"- It's a way of fooling people into thinking they have the best interests.

But more on topic, this is their way of making people drooling, mindless imbeciles. If children are not raised by a family, foster family, or someone responsible(And so you'll know, political entities are not responsible), they will be completely illogical in their reasoning, and easily given into a herd-mentality. Seriously, think about it: all that needs to happen is the media to propagate that something is "cool", and practically everyone does it. And if you don't think, that will all the... things that the U.N. has done to people that a law that would practically take away the family in the development of children would be bad, then you need to expand your reasoning beyond the confines of what the mass media says.

I strongly believe that a far worse, and less free/ diverse future is inevitable, largely because of things like these. In a few years, children will very likely be forcibly admitted to daycare-like facilities to be indoctrinated with cosmopolitanist ideology. And that would only make the demand for some sort of "world state" that the U.N. envisions higher in demand, as well as causing more problems that they can use as excuses to pass laws. Besides, if you remove all but the most animal, unreasoning, impulsive, and inhuman aspects from human society, then it's easier to convince people of whatever. I doubt that "human" will mean anything more than a species of animal in a few years due to the declining intelligence of the masses. If you could call it intelligence, that is.

I honestly believe that society on this planet will be ruined by its common interests. Roughly every common value held by this world is illogical, self-conflicting, and dead-set on collapsing everything into a singularity regardless of the cost. Or their values are perverted corruptions of once decent ideas. It's to where the interconnected governments that are half-mistakable as puppets are trying to indoctrinate the youth into acting completely ignorant of every thing.

You have no idea how much I wish I could just leave society. Even if I could move to some deserted island that nobody knew about, some idiot would move right next to me.
User avatar
Cross.eyed
Valued Member
Posts: 461
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:45 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Kentucky U.S.A.

Re: UN "Rights of the Child" Treaty

Post by Cross.eyed »

The dumbing down of America began in the fifties with the rise of mass media.

Following closely was the sixties with "make love and not war" era that replaced love with sex
and noone explained the difference.

Then came the seventies when all of authority was put into question; parents, teachers, law enforcement, and Government.
There has been no replacement.

The eighties became the "me me" generation with self this and self that, with self-help books and T.V. shows about how to look out for good 'ol # 1 and people started caring less about others.
It has only gotten worse since.

The nineties were the non-thinkers in all of history with the media doing everyones thinking for them.They began to think with their eyes.
We can see the culmination of that now, in "this toothpaste will change your life", "you deserve this car" etc.etc. ad infinitum.

We have now come to the point of being the dumbest generation yet-a very dangerous situation.

I believe it was Kruchev(sp.) who said "Give me your children and I will take your nation."
I am the wretch the song refers to.
User avatar
ageofknowledge
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1086
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2007 11:08 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Southern California

Re: UN "Rights of the Child" Treaty

Post by ageofknowledge »

The strongest treaties are negotiated by the state department/President then sent to the Senate for ratification (e.g. advice and consent). But as wiki puts it:

"Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain Congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.."

These treaties not ratified by the Senate are technically illegitimate from a Constitutional perspective:

"Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to make treaties with other countries, after obtaining the consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate."

Nevertheless, it is common practice today for the Executive branch to unilaterally negotiate treaties that become the law of the land without allowing the Senate to vote on them simply by renaming them 'Executive Agreements'. Today, Obama and Hillary follow after Bush Jr and Rice engaging in this practice.

However, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law and regardless of whether or not other countries and organizations (like the United Nations) continue to hold the old treaty valid. Also, The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.

So our Congress has the power to toss them or rewrite treaties and the Supreme Court has the authority to rule their provisions unconstitutional :). But if neither happens then subsequent Presidents must honor existing treaties.

The United Nations influence comes from the United Nations Charter which states that treaties must be registered with the UN to be invoked before it or enforced in its judiciary organ, the International Court of Justice. This was done to prevent the proliferation of secret treaties that occurred in the 19th and 20th century creating situations like started the first world war. The Charter also states that its members' obligations under it outweigh any competing obligations under other treaties. So if we agree to a UN treaty, then it supercedes the provisions of all other treaties (past, present, and future) that conflict with it.

Nevertheless, again the Congress or the Supreme Court can repeal the treaty or impose modifications on what we are willing to accept from it.

Now regarding the 'Rights of a Child' treaty wiki states:

"The United States government played an active role in the drafting of the Convention and signed it on 16 February 1995, but has not ratified it. Opposition to the Convention is in part due to what are seen as potential conflicts with the Constitution and because of opposition by some political and religious conservatives. The Heritage Foundation sees the conflict as an issue of national control over domestic policy. President Barack Obama has described the failure to ratify the Convention as 'embarrassing' and has promised to review this."

While this treaty has many provisions that would help children, it also has serious problems. One problem is that it is unconstitutional violating the Tenth Amendment which restricts the authority of the federal government to pass legislation or ratify treaties that will protect children as this responsibility falls under states rights. Another is that it supercedes parental rights in important ways. But the greatest threat is setting a precedent of putting the UN in a position to control U.S. domestic policy.

It is for these reasons that this treaty has been resisted by the USA to date and I agree that it should not be ratified nor enforced on these grounds plus taking into consideration that the USA has excellent laws protecting children in every single state while already enforcing federal protection. Unlike healthcare, this is simply unneeded and in light of the threat it represents to both U.S. and state sovereignty should be dismissed from further consideration.
Post Reply