Part 15: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Itself

Now we come to the discussion of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child itself. Several times I have mentioned it in the prior postings. Now I will spend some time discussing this treaty after having provided you with a Biblical foundation for parental duties and hopefully a better understanding of the worldview which is threatening this Biblical perspective.

The first two philosophies which I discussed in recent posts find their tangible fulfillment regarding children in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is a UN treaty, completed in 1989 and signed by 192 of 193 countries, that binds ratifying countries as any other contract does so in a business situation. Our country’s constitution binds us in even stronger terms to this type of agreement than in those other 192 countries. In Article 6 of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the US Senate becomes quote “Supreme Law of the Land”, practically equal to the Constitution. This means that it will override state and local laws regarding the family. The jurisdiction of the federal government will then extend into your private family life.

It basically becomes constitutional law unless the constitution explicitly exempts a particular law from treaties (according to V.C of T, the Gold standard for treaties). Some of you, having studied the constitution, may object here on a variety of grounds. Some will claim that the 10th amendment protects us. A Supreme Court case in the 1950’s called Reid v. Covert clearly ruled that while a treaty cannot override an explicit constitutional law, it can become the final legal word if the Constitution does not speak to that particular area of law. Some will say that the founders never intended federal jurisdiction in this area of life and others will say that Article 6 treaty powers only meant for international issues. However, regardless of which interpretation is correct, the current legal environment has chosen to interpret Article 6 as a way to implement law through treaties rather than through a normal legislative process. To them, it becomes “supreme law of the land” regardless of what legal opinionists say in disagreement.

Part 14: The Emerging Worldview Threatening our Children, Section 4

Obviously, this view is different than most American’s beliefs and should be opposed by anyone who believes that parents have an inalienable right to direct the upbringing and education of their own children. If the government gains the upper hand, they will take over this role from the parents. This will occur through legal means, educational means, and administrative means. Who exactly will take over? The ruling political class and their experts.
In contrast, we recognize that God has given parents certain rights and duties, not the government. They are inalienable rights based on the duties commanded by God discussed earlier. They do not need the government to grant them, only protect them from its own power grab. Unless parents cross a criminal line, the civil government must stay out of the family sphere. The real perpetrator against rights is government. As will be seen shortly, the UN seeks to undermine the Biblical view of parental rights
As the final ingredient to a nasty recipe, many high ranking leaders of our country believe in Customary International Law. This is an entry point for the philosophy just discussed into our system of law. In simple terms, this means that International Law overrides our Constitution or Congressional law if the majority of other countries already hold to it. For parental rights this means that we should obey the CRC even though we have not ratified it.
One may examine the US Supreme Court Case of Roper v. Simmons in which the CRC was used to rule against the juvenile death penalty. My concern lies not with the death penalty, but with the use of the CRC to argue against it based on Customary International Law. Another example is a judge in NY and another in Ohio has even used the CRC to rule in cases involving American parents. This is another example of using customary international law although the Ohio judge simply thought that we had already ratified the CRC. If that is not irritating enough, San Francisco, Portland, OR, and Berkeley have adopted CRC (without legal jurisdiction to adopt treaties).
You should also be aware that very high ranking officials in the US Justice Department and the State Department believe this theory of law. Harold Koh believes this as a high ranking State Dept. lawyer. David Ogden -- deputy attorney general of the United States, the second highest position in the Justice Department also holds to this philosophy.
And last but not least, not only does our new Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor believe in the supremacy of international law, but so does our current tentative appointee, Elena Kagan. So you can see that the leaders entrusted to defend us and our law, don’t believe in defending us, but instead surrendering our freedoms to international law. If these leaders and their followers have their way, the CRC will probably become part of American law without Senate ratification through Customary International Law.
Obviously, while the first two philosophies combine to pose a great danger to parental rights, the third ingredient simply opens wide the door to their UNWELCOME intrusion and heightens the urgency of a response by American parents.

Part 13: The Emerging Worldview that Threatens Our Children, Section 3

Does this view of the world agree with your own beliefs about parenting? Have you fallen for their deception that you are incompetent and should just trust them all the time? The second aspect of this warped worldview is that many groups and leaders also have a different view of legal rights than the majority of America holds. This view synergizes with this philosophy towards government knowing best.

Americans have long viewed rights as boundaries that government was assigned to protect so that freedoms could be practiced by individual citizens. Within those boundaries, citizens are free to practice or to not practice those rights. For example, gun rights or freedom of speech. You can carry a gun if you don’t break the law, but you are not required to do so. What gun rights would we have without the Bill of Rights? On the contrary, International theory of rights understands rights as something that the government is obligated to provide as a service or to meet a physical need or to equalize two groups. Citizens can demand that right and expect the government to provide it. That may be health care, education, social programs. It often includes taking from one and giving to another.

When these two philosophies or worldviews are combined and applied to children’s rights, the following results: Government knows what is best and is legally bound to provide that to the child regardless of parent’s wishes. Children can demand that the government provide this right over the protest of parents. Parents must carry out the government’s plan for what is best for the child, not their own belief in what is best. Under these circumstances, children are not really emancipated from their parents, but instead they are enslaved to a faceless, unemotional government bureaucracy rather being protected by loving parents.

Part 11: The Emerging Worldview that Threatens our Future Generations, Section 1

There are three different aspects of this worldview which synergize to threaten our children. First, much of the international community and many inside our own country promote the philosophy that the government is the one who will make the best choices for children, NOT PARENTS. Second, they believe that government and its authorities know what is “best for the child” even more so than parents. Therefore, they should intervene to guarantee this “best”. Finally, this fits with the idea of a Nanny Sate that always knows best and attempts to construct an externally controlled utopia. It is externally controlled in that it uses laws and punishment versus internal control of will and desire in a morally directed society.

Who believes in this philosophy? Surprisingly, many state leaders, US congressmen, and state department leaders hold to this philosophy. Some have even spoke this aloud in our halls of government One of Tennessee’s own state Senators stated publicly that he did not for the life of him see what was wrong with the UN CRC, which is the most explicit expression of this philosophy in the world (HANG ON, I will soon explain the details). Several in the Tennessee House and Tennessee Senate voted AGAINST a state resolution opposing the UN CRC last year although it eventually passed both houses. Some have even written books about a village raising a child.

Having children myself, I agree that parents need a community around them. However, the parents should choose who influences the child, not a government or its agencies. I liked what someone else said in that it takes a tribe, not a village. Parents choose the tribe, or community that surrounds their children, not the government.