Thursday, November 19, 2009
The rally will begin at 11:00am and will be held on the U.S. Capitol grounds (House side on the East Lawn, in front of the Library of Congress and on the Independence side of Cannon HOB.) Speakers include U.S. Representative Peter Hoekstra (MI), J. Michael Smith, President, Home School Legal Defense Association, Steven Groves, Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow, The Heritage Foundation among many others.
To learn more visit the Parentalrights.org Facebook Family Day Event page.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
To learn more about the impending case read the article below:
Supreme Court to Bind Florida to International Law?
Just two days prior to the U.S. Supreme Court hearings on life sentences for youth, Michael Farris, J.D., will appear on Fox News Channel’s Huckabee’s Opinion to discuss the issue.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
1st Place Winner
1st Place Winner
1st Place Winner
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
SUPREME COURT URGED TO IMPOSE UNRATIFIED TREATY
Press Contact: Rebekah Pizana National Coalition Director ParentalRights.org 540.645.9475 Rebekah@parentalrights.org
by Jim Bentley Tuesday, September 29, 2009
The Supreme Court this term has agreed to hear on appeal two cases which question the authority of a state to sentence juvenile violent offenders to life without parole. Amnesty International and other global organizations have filed briefs urging the Court to apply the U.N.’s controversial Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) to Florida law as a matter of binding “Customary International Law”. On Monday, sixteen members of the U.S. House of Representatives filed an opposing brief which argues that this use of international law is contrary to both the facts and the law.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Pete's Perspective: Obama Lesson Plan Leaves Out Parents
Next Tuesday, President Obama will address K-12 students in America on the importance of education. It is not unusual for Presidents to engage children, but President Obama has circumvented superintendents and school boards across the country by sending lesson plans to principals and teachers to accompany his address.
While some may see this as harmless, the Administration has once again revealed its fundamentally flawed philosophy on government’s role in education - and our lives generally. The desire to influence and preempt local control of schools is evident in the classroom activities the Administration has put together for the President’s address. He not only establishes the content, but how it should be taught in the classroom by teachers. Rather than use his platform to promote parental involvement and collaboration in children’s educations, the President presumes the same Washington-knows-best philosophy that has plagued our education system for far too long.
I have continuously advocated for a school system based upon parental and local control. Parents do not need the White House and Department of Education to come between the values they have taught their children at home. Parents are not only responsible for educating but also imparting the values they believe their children will need to be successful students and citizens.
I am opposed to the federal government further entering our schools. Congress needs to restore local control of education to parents and local education officials.
CLICK HERE for more Pete's Perspectives
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
ParentalRights.org will give away more than $1000 in prizes in our PROclaim video contest. First place is $250 in each of 4 categories, with additional 2nd and 3rd place prizes. Categories include (1) Parental Rights Amendment Commercials, and What Is the Parental Rights Amendment in (2) Youth, (3) Adults, and (4) Family divisions.
So charge up your camera, get your creative juices flowing, and get started today! Click here for additional information.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The Amendment has also now been introduced to the Senate as S. J. Res 16 by Senator Jim DeMint. Since we currently only have 2 sponsors, this would be a great time to contact your Senator and try to encourage them to sign on too. Let's call our Senators and get them to stand up for parental rights.
Below is the Amendment we are seeking to draft. It's simple and yet profound as it will protect our rights as parents to direct the upbringing of our children.
Parental Rights Amendment
The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Monday, July 6, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Call Now to Stop
UN Children’s Treaty
Dear HSLDA Members and Friends,
Monday in a Harlem middle school, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a group of 120 students that administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join” (that is, ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As before, she also communicated what a disgrace it is that the U.S. would stand with only Somalia against such a widely accepted treaty.
This is the first direct public statement by the Obama administration that it will seek ratification of the UN CRC.
In my 30 years of political involvement, I have learned to recognize this as what is called a “trial balloon.” Like in World War I trench warfare, our opponents have “sent up a balloon” to see if it will draw fire. If things remain quiet, they will proceed with their plans to push for ratification of the CRC in the U.S. Senate. To discourage them from doing so, we need to make sure that our voices are heard with unmistakable clarity. We must let the Obama administration know that we oppose this anti-family, anti-American treaty.
Here’s what we need you all to do:
1. Call the White House comments line at 202-456-1111. Tell them you heard the administration wants to ratify the CRC, and you strongly oppose this giving away of U.S. sovereignty to the UN. Also, keep in mind that this treaty gives the government jurisdiction to override any decision made by any parent if the government thinks that a better decision can be made—even if there is no proof of any harm.
2. Call the Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations. Tell her that you want her to represent the United States to the world rather than trying to get the United States to go along with international law initiated by the UN. Her office number is 212-415-4000.
3. Contact your senators and urge them to oppose ratification of this treaty. (Find your senators’ contact information by using HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox.) Ask them also to defeat it once and for all by cosponsoring SJRes 16—the Parental Rights Amendment.
It is very important that we speak up right now. Please call before you close this email!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Three major developments—all of them ominous—have occurred in the last several days.
1. On June 1 and 2, Georgetown University Law School hosted a two-day symposium entitled “The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): Why It Is Time to Ratify.”
This well-funded conference was held to organize a new coalition effort by American internationalists to seek ratification of the UN child’s rights treaty.
2. In the second week of June, a major study was released by the British education ministry calling for dramatically dangerous increases in the regulation of homeschoolers in that nation.
This study concludes that the UN CRC requires that the government enter every homeschooling home and privately interview each homeschooling child to determine “the child’s wishes” regarding his or her education.
3. On June 17, at the UN headquarters in Geneva, the UN’s Human Rights Committee—which oversees all human rights treaties—announced that it was forming a committee to draft a new “protocol” for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under this new addition to the CRC, individual children would be able to file a formal legal complaint if they believe that their rights had been violated. It would give this new international tribunal the right to determine if the child’s treaty rights had been violated by any person.
It is obvious from the recent symposium at Georgetown that supporters of the UNCRC are beginning to organize and push for the US to ratify this treaty. The recent study in Britain confirms that the UNCRC is unfavorable to homeschooling and would require the government, not parents, to determine what is in the best interest of the child's education. And since the UN Human Rights committee is seeking new protocols for the UNCRC that would give children the power to sue their parents we can see that the threats against parental rights are very real. In America, parents, not judges, need to be the decision makers in the lives of their own children. These latest developments are a reminder as to why we need to take action now to protect parental rights. The only way to stop all threats against parental rights is to pass the The Parental Rights Amendment. To learn more about the proposed amendment or to find ways you can help protect parental rights, visit parentalrights.org.
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Parental Rights Amendment as proposed by Rep. Pete Hoekstra in House Joint Resolution 42 has now been introduced in the U.S. Senate as well. The companion bill, Senate Joint Resolution 16, was introduced by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina in May. Currently, Senator DeMint is the only sponsor.
Our efforts in the House have been quite successful, securing 93 sponsors to date. So now is the time to contact your senators and urge them to sign on as cosponsors to S.J.Res. 16, the Parental Rights Amendment, in the U.S. Senate. To find their contact information, enter your zip code in the box at Congress.org.
Visit ParentalRights.org to learn more.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Dear ParentalRights.org Kansas Supporters,
We are launching a new nationwide effort to lobby Congressional support this summer and hope you will join us! Please forward this information to family, friends, and organizational contacts and encourage them to join this important effort! As of today, the Parental Rights Amendment has 93 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. While we are excited to see such significant support for this issue, we must continue presenting this issue to more Congressmen and Senators.
Here's what you can do to be pro-active in your Congressional district this summer:
1) Find 20 people to help you gather 1,000 petition signatures, urging their Congressmen or Senators to sponsor the Parental Rights Amendment. (If your Congressman is already a co-sponsor, focus on your Senators.) You can find a printable version of the petition form on our website (http://tr.im/ncyq). I have also attached a document with the contact information for the Congressmen and Senators in your state.
2) It might be easier to gather this many signatures if each person collects 50. Or, hold a petition drive in your town, at your church or local grocery store, etc.
3) If you cannot find 20 people in your district, gather support from other districts and present the petition to multiple Congressmen AND your Senators.
4) Call your representative's local office and set up an appointment to meet with him or her to discuss the Amendment. If you are unable to set up an appointment over the phone, or if they are unresponsive, look up the next townhall or public meeting and have all 20 members of your group attend.
5) Once you are face-to-face with your Congressman or Senator, hand them the petition of 1,000 signatures.
6) Also, mail us a copy of the signatures to:
PO Box 1090
Purcellville, VA 20132
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
They site a case in a which a father took his 13 year old son to the hospital because of a reaction he was having to his perscription medication. The doctor asked the father for permission to test for illegal drug use and the father gave his consent. However, after the tests were completed the doctor would not give the father the results citing the child's right to medical privacy.
While it makes sense that the parent must give consent for all testing for a minor child it makes absolutely no sense that the parent should not then have access to the results of the test. They are the parent and have a right to know everything about the condition of their child, not the mention they are person legally responsible for paying for the test in the first place!
The article then goes on to explain how HIPAA actually gives doctors the power to decide what information they will share with parents. It basically boils down to giving doctors authority that parents should have.
...our federal government has invaded parents rights through the HIPAA regulations—yes, those same regulations that waste millions of pieces of paper every year by requiring that doctors give us pages of tiny print legalese that most Americans have the good sense to simply ignore.
The federal government maintains a website, giving official answers to questions about the implementation of HIPAA. This is what that site says about parental rights:
What right does a minor have under HIPAA to claim his or her own privilege to deny access to records under HIPAA? If the minor does not want parents or others to have access to his or her records, can the provider refuse to provide the records to the parents?
The short answer to this question is that if the health care provider or facility concurs with the minor that the parents should not have access to his or her treatment records, the minor has a good chance of precluding parents from access to the records or granting access to others.
What is the authority for this “short answer”? The official regulations (45 CFR 164.502(g)(3)(ii)(C)—this is the number of the rule for those keeping score at home) say that unless state law requires a doctor to disclose the medical information to the parent, the doctor may unilaterally refuse to give the information to the parent if the doctor’s decision is “in the exercise of professional judgment.” This section is not limited to cases of suspected abuse or neglect. In fact, there is a separate section of the federal regulations which covers such cases.
It is important to see the role that the wishes of the child play in this situation. The question asks whether a child may keep his medical records a secret. But the regulation gives the doctor unilateral control to withhold information from parents. No request from the child is required to trigger the doctor’s power to keep parents in the dark. It is the doctor’s judgment alone that allows him to withhold medical results from parents.
Be sure to read the entire atricle at Parentalrights.org. We must stay vigilant in protecting parental rights before they are taken away. As this article shows the threat from within the US is just as great as the threat from international law. Amending the constitution is the best way to assure that parental rights remain fundamental.
To learn more about what you can do to help protect parental rights visit:
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Monday, May 18, 2009
Excerpts from Oklahoma’s resolution include:
WHEREAS the right of the parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right protected by the Constitutions of the United States and the state of Oklahoma; and …
WHEREAS, by virtue of the federal Supremacy Clause all Oklahoma law regarding children would be overridden if there is a conflict with this treaty if ratified; and…
WHEREAS, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child at periodic intervals publishes “general Comments” which are substantive additions to the obligations of state parties already under the Convention, and…
WHEREAS, this represents a wholesale abandonment of the ultimate sovereignty of the United States on matters within the scope of the treaty…
…BE IT RESOLVED…that the State of Oklahoma hereby condemns the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and urges the United States Senate to reject its ratification.
To read more about what these states are doing and how you can encourage your state to take similar action visit parentalrights.org and view their recent article, State Legislatures Oppose UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Visit parentalrights.org to read the full article.
Parental Rights Amendment to Protect Gun Owners’ RightsMay 12, 2009
ParentalRights.org today released The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: The Impact on Private Gun-Ownership in America, a carefully considered legal analysis of the impact this United Nations treaty will have on Americans’ Second Amendment Rights. In it, author Michael Farris, J.D., establishes that ratification of the UNCRC poses a significant threat to the right of the American people to keep and bear arms:
- The U.N. believes all children have a right to grow up in a community without guns.
- The U.N. holds that the UNCRC is applicable to this issue.
- They also hold that the idea that guns are beneficial is itself harmful to children.
- The UN believes guns should never be accessible to children.
Monday, May 11, 2009
When we heard Michael Farris speak last month, he handed out papers that explained 10 things you need to know about the structure of the CRC and 10 things you need to know about the substance of the CRC. He said that we could copy that information up to about 100,000 times (or some large number like that) without asking his permission. In other words, he wanted this information to be passed around. So I am copying this from the ParentalRights.org website. Be sure to see the their full article 20 Things you Need to Know About the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to learn more.
10 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.
Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.
The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.
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.
The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
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.
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.
Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
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.
Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
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.
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.
According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
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.
Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
This Sunday we celebrate Mother’s Day in the United States. If you are a mother, we thank you and salute you for the invaluable work you do in fulfilling that vital role in the life of your children, and the heritage of our nation!
Sadly, the United Nations would hold such a sentiment to be discriminatory against women. In 2000, the United Nations CEDAW Committee (named for the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW) criticized the nation of Belarus for “the reintroduction of such [sex-role stereotype] symbols as a Mother’s Day and a Mothers’ Award, which it sees as encouraging women’s traditional roles.” [See paragraph 361 on page 37 of the UN document here.]
For our part, ParentalRights.org is proud to encourage women in the role of mother, as we are proud of loving fathers for the part they play. The fact is, the role of parents in directing the upbringing and education of their children is a precious and fundamental right. It should not be looked down on, nor stolen, by international governing bodies such as the CEDAW Committee, nor the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), like CEDAW, is an international treaty attempting to dictate domestic policy. Like CEDAW, it has set up a panel of UN “experts” to “advise” nations who are not in compliance with the treaty, setting international law policy which activist judges then incorporate into national law.
Unlike CEDAW, however, the UNCRC does not oppose Mother’s Day. Rather, it constitutes an attack on Motherhood itself, replacing fundamental parental rights with bureaucratic oversight at a federal and international level. Perhaps if we ratified both treaties we could just replace Mother’s Day with Social Worker’s Day, and the UN would be pleased.
The only permanent solution to prevent U.S. ratification of the UNCRC is the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which includes the provision that “No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to [fundamental parental rights].” This would finally end the threat of UNCRC ratification in the United States. While that alone may not preserve Mother’s Day, it can at least save Motherhood from international interference.
Please, as you value your own parents and your rights as parents to raise your own children, take a moment to forward this email to every mother you know – or even everyone who has a mother – and be sure to wish them “Happy Mother’s Day!” To sign the petition or to learn more about the dangers of the UNCRC or the need for the Parental Rights Amendment, visit us on the web at parentalrights.org.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
It is not difficult to discern the legal impact of a ratified treaty on our domestic law. It’s spelled out plainly in the text of the U.S. Constitution. Article VI states that, along with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, ratified treaties “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.” Treaties trump state law.He also makes an excellent point about what kind of statement it makes the rest of the world when supporters of the treaty suggest that we should sign it because our signature does not make it binding or obligate us to follow it if we do.
Ratify the treaty, they say. It’s not legally binding. We can choose what to obey and what not to.He is correct, this entire series of arguments for ratification makes absolutely no sense. Why fight so hard for something you have no intention of keeping. The truth is the people that make such claims know that this treaty will be binding, they simply do not want the average American to know it. They want a law that not only trumps state law but also grants to them the authority to approve of how we all raise our children. As Farris correctly concludes in the article:
This argument is not only patently hypocritical, it is legally wrong.
The most important principle of international law is: pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept). In other words, keep your promises.
Make no mistake, whenever the United States ratifies a treaty it enters into a binding legal obligation to comply with its terms. Arguing that a treaty is a mere philosophical statement of intent with no binding legal consequences is blatant error. Besides, what message does this send to the international community the Obama administration seems desperate to please?
Arguing that America can enter into treaties and then comply on piecemeal basis undermines our international reputation. Worse, it suggests that America cannot be trusted to keep its promises.
Under this treaty, every decision made about children —whether by government or parents— is subject to governmental review. Armed with the CRC, any social worker can second-guess any parent based on an opinion that the parents’ choice was not in the “best interest” of the child. Under this subjective standard, no family is safe from governmental intrusion.You will want to read his response in its entirety at Townhall.com for it he shares information that every American needs to know about this treaty including how some judges are already applying it to their decisions before it has even been ratified. The decisions they make based upon their assumption that this treaty is binding reveals just how much power this will have if it ever is ratified. Parents will lose their right to train their children according to their own convictions and instead will begin to fear what the government will do or say about every decision they make. This is not the direction our country needs to go. Visit Parentalrights.org to find out more about the proposed amendment that will guarantee that treaties will never take away our rights to raise our children and find out what you can do to help.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Monday, May 4, 2009
If you would like to promote the Parental Rights Amendment ParentalRights.org has some great resources for you to use.
Audio and Radio
Let us do all that we can to spread the word and protect the right of parents to raise their children according to their own beliefs and values.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
I am certainly glad to see this issue getting media attention and I was pleased with the article. However, there still seems to be no coverage on the impact the supremacy clause in our constitution would have if we ratified this treaty. (See my blog about Hoekstra on O'Reilly to learn more about that.) With that in mind I would like to comment on a few statements made within the article.
"The reality is that no country that is a party to the convention has seen parental rights encroached," said Jonathan Todres, a law professor at Georgia State University who has worked with Gardinier's coalition.There are two things wrong with this statement, one is that it is not true. Michael Farris gives an instance in which the UNCRC was used to violate a parent's right in Wales.
The Committee on the Rights of the Child is the official UN tribunal granted the authority to interpret and enforce the Children's Convention, which sets forth an exhaustive index of children's rights, many at odds with the rights of parents. The tribunal has held, for instance, that the United Kingdom violated children's rights in Wales by allowing parents to withdraw their children from public school programs without first considering the child's wishes. (Elitism Threatens Parental Rights)As we can see, in other countries parents have seen this right encroached upon and the UNCRC was specifically used to take that right away.
The other error is, of course, his failure to recognize the supremacy clause in our constitution. I have mentioned it before, and I suppose I will have to keep mentioning it until it gets properly reported. What Jonathan Todres fails to mention is that no other country that has ratified the treaty has a constitutional clause that automatically makes the UNCRC the supreme law of their land. As a law professor, I have to assume he knows that the supremacy clause exists, and therefore knows that his own argument is flawed. I am saddened that he attempts to fool Americans by making such a statement. He has to realize the supremacy clause means ratification would impact our country like no other.
Todres goes on to say:
The treaty "has the potential to be a great tool for parents," Todres said. "It's something the parents could use to say, 'My child has the right to freedom of religion and the state cannot encroach on that. My child has education rights, health care rights, and the state cannot ignore that.'"
We already have a great tool for parents to use in America and it is called our Constitution. I do not need a UN treaty to fight for my child's right. You should note that he mentions certain rights here that are not specifically guaranteed in our constitution. If Todres wants Americans to have a tool that says health care is a "right" then he needs to work on amending our current constitution or passing laws within our own country that will grant his wishes. That is how laws that govern civil life in this country should be made. They should be made by the legislators we elect to represent us, not a board of international delegates who do not live or reside in the country they rule. That is the kind of tyranny we fought against in the Revolutionary war. We should not look to the UN to write and in some cases over-write our laws for us, we have our own methods for protecting children in this country.
One of the biggest arguments against the Parental Rights Amendment is that most people do not like to amend our constitution. It is such a great document that people are leary to mess with it. I certainly agree. What they fail to understand is that if we ratify the UNCRC we are pretty much doing the same thing, only we are doing so without the tough approval process amendments require. The only way to stop this threat is to amend our constitution to say that no treaty will supersede our fundamental rights.
I am very encouraged that the issue is getting media attention. Please read the full article
Clash brewing over global Rights of Child pact at MSNBC. To learn more about the proposed Parental Rights Amendment and help protect us from the threat of the UNCRC visit parentalrights.org or parentsrights.us.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Read full article at ImpactWire.com and see how passionate this man is about the Parental Rights Amendment and find ways you can help.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
The show will air Saturday evening (4/25) at 8 P.M. ET, and on Sunday (4/26) at 2 A.M., 8 P.M., 11 P.M. on the Fox News Channel
Please pray for Dr. Michael Farris, HSLDA chairman and co-founder, who
has been rescheduled to appear on the Huckabee show April 25-26. The
Fox News Channel interview by former Gov. Mike Huckabee will address
Dr. Farris' efforts to shelter the American family from the imposition
of international law through the Parental Rights Amendment, recently
introduced in Congress. The interview takes place Saturday at 2:30
P.M. in New York City and airs Saturday evening (4/25) at 8 P.M. ET,
and on Sunday (4/26) at 2 A.M., 8 P.M., 11 P.M.
With yet another opportunity for Mike to stand up for truth, and for
American families, on a national stage, we thank God and ask you to
please tune in and pray that this vital issue gets the fair, accurate,
and far-reaching coverage it warrants.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
He like many others urges you to go to parentalrights.org to find out more about the UNCRC, and to sign the petition calling for the Parental Rights Amendment. I encourage you to read the entire article which can be found at the link below.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Visit http://christiannewswire.com/news/6408810116.html to read the article from Christian Newswire.com
Saturday, April 18, 2009
In the case of the United States it would be totally different because article six of the US Constitution has what is referred to as the supremacy clause and states that any treaty we sign becomes the supreme law of the land. It reads as follows (bold and italics are mine):
"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."
So, if the Unites States signs this treaty it would get the same status as the constitution itself and it would take precedent over any law in our land that did not meet the standards set by an international board of directors! That is why the United States has failed to ratify this treaty and it is why we never should.
There are good parts to this treaty but US law already addresses those issues with our current laws. We do not allow people to trade children, enslave them or abuse them. We do not NEED this treaty to help us protect the children of this country. The United States is far better at treating children than most of the countries who have signed this treaty but refuse to actually follow it. Again, they have the capacity to ignore the treaty because in their system of government treaties do not become the supreme law of their land.
While there are some good aspects to the treaty there are parts of it that are not necessarily looking out for the best interest of children. After all, it is adults who are on the panel in the UN that get to decide what they believe is in the best interest of children. The goal of some of the articles in this document is to control what children are allowed to be taught and how children are to be raised and disciplined. It is NOT the job of an international board OR the United States government to determine what is and is best for MY child, or your child or any child. Parents, not the government, should be making decisions regarding the way their children are raised. If we give that up to the US government, to the UN, or to anyone else then we have given up our freedom, and I am not ready or willing to do that. The Parental Rights Amendment will guarantee that international law will NEVER supersede the rights of law abiding Americans to raise their children.
I received this in email from parentalrights.org. I wanted to pass it on to all of you!
The introduction of the Parental Rights Amendment in the U.S. Congress (H.J. Res. 42) was announced at a press conference yesterday afternoon. Below is the body of parentalrights.org president Michael Farris's powerful speech from that event. If your Congressman or Senator is not already onboard, we urge you to copy and paste that message into an email or letter to send to them, along with your own personal message. (Check the sponsors list; find contact info.) This message clearly articulates the need for the Amendment; it is imperative that we get it into the hands of all of America's lawmakers.
Statement of Michael Farris
President of ParentalRights.org
March 31, 2009
On behalf of ParentalRights.org and the rapidly growing number of allied organizations, I want to thank Senator Jim DeMint, Congressman Pete Hoekstra, and my own Congressman Frank Wolf for their leadership on this important issue.
There are two basic reasons that the Constitution has been amended throughout our history. Sometimes the need is to preserve our law and traditions from potential threats and erosion of our rights. The Bill of Rights serves as the chief example of amendments designed to preserve the existing rights of the people.
At other times, it is absolutely necessary to change the existing law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were clearly necessary to end the evils of slavery and establish the principle of equal protection for all Americans.
The Parental Rights Amendment follows the pattern of the Bill of Rights—the goal of this Amendment is to preserve our existing law and traditions against judicial erosion and the ever-growing threat of international law.
Sections 1 and 2 of this Amendment do nothing more than restate the time-honored doctrines of the Supreme Court on parental rights. We are simply changing parental rights from an implied right based on judicial opinions to an express right based upon actual constitutional text.
Section 1 faithfully employs the words and phrasing of the Supreme Court’s decision of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), to declare that the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.
Section 2 carefully follows the words of the Court in Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), to declare that parental rights, while very important, have limits. The government may intervene when the interest is of the highest order and not otherwise served. This section is a correct statement of current law. Today, when the government has proper evidence of child abuse or neglect, it may and should prosecute a parent who is responsible for such behavior.
Section 2 ensures that this principle remains intact. Parental rights are fundamental, but they are not absolute.
Section 3 preserves the current principle that only American laws govern the relationship between parents and children in this country. The use of international law is a rapidly growing trend in our judicial system. One federal district judge in New York has on two separate occasions ruled that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child already binds the United States under the doctrine of customary international law. An Ohio court ruled on an obviously flawed premise that this treaty had already been ratified by the Senate, and therefore ordered parents to stop smoking because it harmed the health of their children.
Section 3 makes it clear that the only law which can be used in American courts regarding American families is the law made in America by our legislatures or the people themselves. The use of international law for domestic purposes is utterly contrary to the idea that this nation is a self-governing Republic.
This section is necessary especially in the context of international law. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, international legal obligations are of superior rank to national law—even if that law is from the national constitution. However, there is an exception. Article 46 of the VCLT says that when the national constitution makes an exception concerning the power to enter treaties, then the national law still triumphs even in the face of an inconsistent treaty obligation.
Section 3 makes it unconstitutional for this nation to enter into a treaty that gives away our sovereignty on the subject of American parents and American children.
This should be a bi-partisan issue. President Obama recently declared, “In the end, there is no program or policy that can substitute for a mother or father.” Every member of Congress who agrees with the President on this principle should be in favor of this Amendment.
Every member of Congress who believes that Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 1.
Every member of Congress who believes that Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), was correctly decided should be in favor of Section 2.
And every member of Congress who believes that only American legislators should make public policy for American families should be in favor of Section 3.
On this last point, a post-election Zogby poll (sponsored by WorldNetDaily) makes it clear that virtually every sector of the American public agrees with this last proposition.
When asked if they wanted American judges to use American law alone or to also consider international law in making decisions, by an overwhelming margin, the American public rejected the idea of using international law for these purposes.
The majority of Republican voters reject international law.
So do the majority of Democratic voters.
Those who voted for McCain reject international law.
A majority of those who voted for Obama reject it as well.
Union members reject international law.
NRA members reject international law.
Every region of the nation rejects international law.
Every age group rejects international law.
Every racial group rejects international law.
This is a bipartisan issue in America among voters, and I truly hope and believe that it will become a bipartisan issue on the Hill. The gap between the values of Capitol Hill and the values of the American people has grown too large on too many issues. This is the very best place to show the American public that we all can work together for shared values.
Both political parties say they are for family values. And this will demonstrate meaningful support for the family.
This Amendment preserves two essential values: the value that good families, not government, have the right to make decisions for children; and that America, not the UN or any other nation, gets to make our public policy to govern the critical relationship between parents and children.