Sensible Medical Solutions: Removal of Your Parental Rights in United Nations Convention on Rights of Child

I am worried. I am really worried. I see children and their parents in my office every day. A small bit of legislation is trying to be slipped past us as parents, physicians, and leaders. If it works, it will supersede state law. It sounds harmless and "fluffy" but it has the teeth of a shark.

Please read the twenty things listed below that this Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) will do if ratified. This is bigger than Obama Care. If this at all frightens you, then to go www.parentalrights.org, sign up and share this with everyone you know.

Why am I worried? If this legislation is passed, it will remove a number of basic rights you and I have as parents and place them in the hands of world government. I realize that you have heard all the conspiracy theories and I am not sharing the most recent. Real legislation has been written and our progressive, soon to be lame duck, congress is attempting to place this on the table within the next month as their last heave-ho! A number of countries have adopted the CRC and the State of Washington had a mirrored set of CRC laws on their books (trying them as an "experiment") until they were repealed due to the significant "hand tying of parents" that occurred.

If this passes, it will remove the parental right to choose where the child is educated or participate in home school. It will remove religious freedom. It will remove the right of parents to enforce standards and discipline in the home.

Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC:

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:

NOTES:

-Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 26 “Pacta sunt servanda”:
“Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”

United States Constitution, Article VI: “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.”

UNICEF “Convention on the Rights of the Child” says: “the Convention is a universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations.” Available at http://www.unicef.org/crc/ on 12/2/2008.

-Vienna Convention Article 26 (supra);

United States Supreme Court, Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 (1888): “By the Constitution of the United States, a treaty and a statute are placed on the same footing, and if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control, provided the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing.”

-Vienna Convention (supra) and Article 2 (g): “‘party’ means a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty and for which the treaty is in force”

-United States Constitution, Article VI (supra, Note 1)

-Arlene Bowers Andrews, Implementing the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, 171 (Greenwood Publishing Group 1999): “The Convention is generally regarded as having two classes of rights for the purposes of self-execution, one class that is self-executing and one that is not self-executing."

-United States Supreme Court, Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. ___ (2008), at 170 L.Ed. 2d 190, 219, “And whether the treaties underlying a judgment are self-executing so that the judgment is directly enforceable as domestic law in our courts is, of course, a matter for this Court to decide.”

-Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference Group on Humanitarian Action and Human Rights,Frequently Asked Questions on International Humanitarian, Human Rights, and Refugee Law, (2002), available at http://www.icva.ch/doc00001023.html#24:
“Human rights law also contains provisions obliging states to implement its rules, whether immediately or progressively. States must adopt a variety of legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures that may be necessary to give effect to the rights provided for in the various treaties. This includes providing for a remedy before domestic courts for violations of specific rights and ensuring that the remedy is effective. The fact that a state has a federal or devolved system of government does not affect a state's obligation to implement human rights law.”

United States Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957): “To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.”

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 43 (amended) and 44. Available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm#art43.

-Vienna Convention, Article 27: “ A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.”

-Vienna Convention, Article 19, available at available at http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.law.of.treaties.convention.1969/19.html; also

Louis Henkin, U.S. Ratification of Human Rights Conventions: The Ghost of Senator Bricker, The American Journal of International Law, Vol 89 No 2, 343-344 (Apr. 1995):
“Reservations designed to reject any obligation to rise above existing law and practice are of dubious propriety: if states generally entered such reservations, the convention would be futile. The object and purpose of the human rights conventions, it would seem, are to promote respect for human rights by having countries—mutually—assume legal obligations to respect and ensure recognized rights in accordance with international standards. Even friends of the United States have objected that its reservations are incompatible with that object and purpose and are therefore invalid.
…By adhering to human rights conventions subject to these reservations, the United States, it is charged, is pretending to assume international obligations but in fact is undertaking nothing.”

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37(a):
“No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age”

United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 8 (2006): The right of the child to protection from corporal punishment and other cruel or degrading forms of punishment (arts. 19; 28, para. 2; and 37, inter alia), CRC/C/GC/8, (2006):
“The Committee is issuing this general comment to highlight the obligation of all State parties to move quickly to prohibit and eliminate all corporal punishment…. Addressing the widespread acceptance or tolerance of corporal punishment of children and eliminating it, in the family, schools and other settings, is … an obligation of State parties under the Convention.”

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 37(a), (supra)

-The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Guide for Children and Young People (April 2008), available at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/04/01081649/1: “You have the right to choose your own religion and beliefs. Your parents should help you think about this.”

Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section B, University of London, 29-30 (2006):
“Unlike earlier treaties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child does not include a provision providing for parents to have their children educated in conformity with their parents’ beliefs. In addition, the child’s right to freedom of expression and the right of the parents to initially give direction and later only guidance, strengthens the argument that children are entitled to participate in decisions so that their education conforms to their own convictions.... The second question is whether a child has the right to choose a religion.
Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, parents do have the right to provide direction to the child. Such parental power, however, is subject to two restraints:
• First, such direction should take into account the evolving capacities of the child, as expressly required by the Convention.
• Second, the direction should not be so unyielding that it equals coercion.
It can also be argued that the right to freedom of religion in the Convention on the Rights of the Child ought to be read together with article 12 which gives the child the right to express his own views in the matter of choice of religion."

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 3(1): “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section D, University of London, 46 (2006):
“Best interests provides decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child's or the parents', providing it is based on considerations of the best interests of the child. Thus, the Convention challenges the concept that family life is always in the best interests of children and that parents are always capable of deciding what is best for children.”

-United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12(1): “State parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.”

Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference Group: “Human rights law also contains provisions obliging states to implement its rules, whether immediately or progressively. States must adopt a variety of legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures that may be necessary to give effect to the rights provided for in the various treaties. This includes providing for a remedy before domestic courts for violations of specific rights and ensuring that the remedy is effective.”

Geraldine Van Bueren, International Rights of the Child, Section D, 137: “State parties are obliged to ‘assure’ to children who are capable of forming views the rights to express those views ‘in all matter affecting the child’ and to give those views’ due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’. By incorporating a reference to ‘all matters affecting the child’ there is no longer a traditional area of exclusive parental or family decision making.”