In recent years, lawmakers have had a propensity to hide behind smokescreens advertised to be “for the good of the children” to advance dubious public policy agendas. Ironically, these agendas often have the exact opposite effect in the lives of kids and undermine time-tested and historically verifiable results for happy and successful children (not to mention the eventuating adults).
In light of the trend towards destructive decision-making cloaked in touchy, feely language about what is good for children, it’s prudent to be immediately skeptical of most things that are being pushed to benefit children; see what’s hiding under the verbiage before turning our children over to anyone’s good ideas.
It’s this principle that sent up red flags when Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, told students on June 22 at a school in Harlem that the Obama administration is looking into “when and how it might be possible to join” (or ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
In a cursory reading of the text of the CRC, you may find little wrong with it. For example, these praise-worthy excerpts come directly from the CRC:
In light of the trend towards destructive decision-making cloaked in touchy, feely language about what is good for children, it’s prudent to be immediately skeptical of most things that are being pushed to benefit children; see what’s hiding under the verbiage before turning our children over to anyone’s good ideas.
It’s this principle that sent up red flags when Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, told students on June 22 at a school in Harlem that the Obama administration is looking into “when and how it might be possible to join” (or ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).
In a cursory reading of the text of the CRC, you may find little wrong with it. For example, these praise-worthy excerpts come directly from the CRC:
...Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community....
...the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth....
However, as in many things in life, what looks good on the outside can often be rotten and even harmful at its core.
The CRC first came upon the world’s stage in 1989, since then it has been ratified by every nation except Somalia and the United States. In 1995, President Clinton signed the CRC. Ratification of the treaty, requiring two-thirds vote of the Senate, however, was halted when many senators began to understand that ratifying the treaty would be a radical departure from US legal precedence regarding the parent-child relationship.
Because most law governing the parent-child relationship in the U.S. is established by individual states, ratifying the CRC would undermine our constitutional republic, the representation of the will of the people, and the role of elected (accountable) legislators in favor of an unelected (unaccountable) international body.
How could the CRC supplant US Law?
The CRC first came upon the world’s stage in 1989, since then it has been ratified by every nation except Somalia and the United States. In 1995, President Clinton signed the CRC. Ratification of the treaty, requiring two-thirds vote of the Senate, however, was halted when many senators began to understand that ratifying the treaty would be a radical departure from US legal precedence regarding the parent-child relationship.
Because most law governing the parent-child relationship in the U.S. is established by individual states, ratifying the CRC would undermine our constitutional republic, the representation of the will of the people, and the role of elected (accountable) legislators in favor of an unelected (unaccountable) international body.
How could the CRC supplant US Law?
The simple answer lies in the US Constitution. In Article 6 it states, the terms of international treaties “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.” This means that according to the Constitution, the laws and constitutions of the states are trumped by the terms of international treaties.
Why have so many other countries signed the CRC if it has the potential to be harmful?
Why have so many other countries signed the CRC if it has the potential to be harmful?
This is also simple. No other nation has the same constitutional conditions regarding international treaties. Therefore, other countries are able to sign the treaty with special “reservations” that they deem appropriate for their intentions or conditions. Reservations are a kind of disclaimer. Because of our Constitutional ramifications, reservations are not an option for the United States.
For this reason, when Ambassador Rice and others claim it is a disgrace for the U.S. to be coupled with Somalia (which has no formal government) as the only countries that have not ratified the CRC, they are misleading the American public.
Another reason that the U.S. Senate backed away from the CRC lies in a philosophical difference in the relationship between the state and the child and who defines the “best interest” of the child. U.S. law governing the family is based on the understanding that a parent operates in the best interest of the child and is given the benefit of the doubt unless proven unfit. The CRC, on the other hand, acts on the presumption that it is the state that best defines the best interest of the child.
The U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1925, "The child is not the mere creature of the State. Those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." This ruling is consistent with the understanding of the role of the family and parenthood in cultures around the world down through the ages. Now, with the CRC, countries are turning over the role of the family and foundational parental involvement to international government. Unfortunately, under the Obama administration the U.S. is dangerously close to following suit.
How will the Treaty be enforced?
For this reason, when Ambassador Rice and others claim it is a disgrace for the U.S. to be coupled with Somalia (which has no formal government) as the only countries that have not ratified the CRC, they are misleading the American public.
Another reason that the U.S. Senate backed away from the CRC lies in a philosophical difference in the relationship between the state and the child and who defines the “best interest” of the child. U.S. law governing the family is based on the understanding that a parent operates in the best interest of the child and is given the benefit of the doubt unless proven unfit. The CRC, on the other hand, acts on the presumption that it is the state that best defines the best interest of the child.
The U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1925, "The child is not the mere creature of the State. Those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations." This ruling is consistent with the understanding of the role of the family and parenthood in cultures around the world down through the ages. Now, with the CRC, countries are turning over the role of the family and foundational parental involvement to international government. Unfortunately, under the Obama administration the U.S. is dangerously close to following suit.
How will the Treaty be enforced?
Pro-treaty advocates like to remind Americans that the CRC will not have enforcement power over how the U.S. carries out the tenants of the treaty. This is also deceptively misleading.
It is quite true that the power to enforce the treaty will lie squarely on the shoulders of the American courts and social workers and not on the CRC Committee. However, it is the committee that has interpretive power over the meaning of the treaty. This is an important distinction, and herein lies the most potential for destructive effects in American families.
Many examples could be used to demonstrate these effects from abortion to education. In the case of abortion and in spite of the fact the the text of the CRC states that it is concerned about protecting the child “before as well as after birth,” UNICEF (the UN’s Children’s Agency) has argued for the right of children to have access to “reproductive health services” (including abortion). They advocate for children to have this access with or without parental consent. This “right” has been defined or interpreted as being in the “best interest” of children by UNICEF. We have every reason to believe that decisions by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will fall in line with current UN interpretations.
Once an issue (or a case), like access to abortion, is interpreted by the CRC Committee, then the American courts will be obligated to carry through the enforcement of the committee’s interpretation. Again, this is directly opposed to our constitutional republic where elected leaders decide policy. Instead, it will be an unelected international committee making parent-child policy decisions for Americans. As you can see, the CRC power of interpretation will directly undermine each states’ laws governing abortion and many other things related to children and parenting in the U.S.
There are many people currently in high places in the U.S. who are are sympathetic to the CRC and are strenuously pushing for U.S. ratification. Perhaps you remember this quote from our current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her book It Takes a Village: “The village itself must act in place of parents. It accepts those responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in government.” As this sentiment demonstrates, those in positions of governmental authority right now do not need a lot of convincing to turn families over to governmental imposition, even from international entities. This June saw much activity regarding the CRC, which is perhaps an indication that the push for ratification may come sooner rather than later. Our response must start now.
What can our response be?
It is quite true that the power to enforce the treaty will lie squarely on the shoulders of the American courts and social workers and not on the CRC Committee. However, it is the committee that has interpretive power over the meaning of the treaty. This is an important distinction, and herein lies the most potential for destructive effects in American families.
Many examples could be used to demonstrate these effects from abortion to education. In the case of abortion and in spite of the fact the the text of the CRC states that it is concerned about protecting the child “before as well as after birth,” UNICEF (the UN’s Children’s Agency) has argued for the right of children to have access to “reproductive health services” (including abortion). They advocate for children to have this access with or without parental consent. This “right” has been defined or interpreted as being in the “best interest” of children by UNICEF. We have every reason to believe that decisions by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child will fall in line with current UN interpretations.
Once an issue (or a case), like access to abortion, is interpreted by the CRC Committee, then the American courts will be obligated to carry through the enforcement of the committee’s interpretation. Again, this is directly opposed to our constitutional republic where elected leaders decide policy. Instead, it will be an unelected international committee making parent-child policy decisions for Americans. As you can see, the CRC power of interpretation will directly undermine each states’ laws governing abortion and many other things related to children and parenting in the U.S.
There are many people currently in high places in the U.S. who are are sympathetic to the CRC and are strenuously pushing for U.S. ratification. Perhaps you remember this quote from our current Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in her book It Takes a Village: “The village itself must act in place of parents. It accepts those responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in government.” As this sentiment demonstrates, those in positions of governmental authority right now do not need a lot of convincing to turn families over to governmental imposition, even from international entities. This June saw much activity regarding the CRC, which is perhaps an indication that the push for ratification may come sooner rather than later. Our response must start now.
What can our response be?
Groups promoting parental rights are advancing the Parental Rights Amendment (PRA) in Congress. Representative Pete Hoekstra (MI) is sponsoring the amendment, H.J. Res. 42. Currently, the bill has 105 cosponsors. In the Senate, Senator Jim DeMint (SC) recently became the primary sponsor of the PRA (S.J. Res. 16), where there are now two cosponsors.
The provisions are laid out in three succinct sections. The first guarantees parents the liberty to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.” The second section forbids the infringement of this right without proof of the parent being unfit. The third states that no “international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights” above stated. The PRA extinguishes all threats to parental rights imposed not only by the CRC, but also by our domestic courts and trends in international law.
Our immediate role as American citizens is to encourage our senators and representatives (in North Dakota Representative Earl Pomeroy, 202-225-2611; and Senators Dorgan, 202-224-2551; and Conrad, 202-224-2043) to become cosponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment. We also have a responsibility to get informed, tell others, and to defeat ratification of the CRC by the Senate if it were to come to a vote.
Where can we find more information?
The provisions are laid out in three succinct sections. The first guarantees parents the liberty to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.” The second section forbids the infringement of this right without proof of the parent being unfit. The third states that no “international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights” above stated. The PRA extinguishes all threats to parental rights imposed not only by the CRC, but also by our domestic courts and trends in international law.
Our immediate role as American citizens is to encourage our senators and representatives (in North Dakota Representative Earl Pomeroy, 202-225-2611; and Senators Dorgan, 202-224-2551; and Conrad, 202-224-2043) to become cosponsors of the Parental Rights Amendment. We also have a responsibility to get informed, tell others, and to defeat ratification of the CRC by the Senate if it were to come to a vote.
Where can we find more information?
The most comprehensive site that deals with the ramifications of U.S. ratification of the CRC is www.ParentalRights.org, which informed much of this article. I encourage you to sign up for their email alerts so you can get updates on breaking news regarding both the CRC and the Parental Rights Amendment.
Other Resources:
- This is the interpretive mentality we will be dealing with if we ratify the UN's CRC: Here's an article on The U.N.'s Economic, Social, and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO) report offering universal sex education to children 5-18 years of age that teaches 5 year olds about masturbation and advocates abortion: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,543203,00.html
- My notes (compiled 7-09) on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child have much more information not included in this article. You can find them here: http://docs.google.com/View?id=d978x5q_3d3z8q6d7
- A January 2010 update on Somalia's intentions to sign the CRC can be found in this excellent article.
