Contact Senators about CRC

[Wild Deuce]

If you still care about this nation's sovereignty and parental rights, please contact your Senators and ask them to oppose United States ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC] and ... ask them to support SR99. Shamefully, our two Indiana senators are missing in action.

More information on this from ParentalRights.org. We do not want this camel to get it's nose into the tent. It only takes a few minutes to call. Thanks.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

As a soon to be dad I am going to have to put some time into this, thanks.

 

[rambone]

If the UN wants us bound to it, its almost certainly undermines our sovereignty and constitution.

Thanks for posting.

 

[edporch]

If the UN wants us bound to it, its almost certainly undermines our sovereignty and constitution.

Thanks for posting.

Unfortunately, the US Constitution allows treaties to be made, and they DO override the US Constitution.

What frightens me MOST, is how our lawmakers LIE to us and tell us that a treaty doesn't overrule the Constitution, when they know FULL WELL that it does, it's fully legal, and there's not a thing we can do about it.

"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." - Article VI US Constitution.

 

[Lucas156]

What does this treaty do? I don't quite understand it

 

[Wild Deuce]

What does this treaty do? I don't quite understand it

I think it is best summarized in these two paragraphs (from ParentalRights.org):

.... Thus, except in cases where a parent has been proven to be "unfit," American law presumes that the parent is acting in the best interests of the child, and defers to that parent's decision.

The Convention, in contrast, supplants this traditional presumption in favor of parents with a new presumption in favor of the state. ...

Detailed analysis from HSLDA:

Nannies in Blue Berets: Understanding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (PDF)

Nannies in Blue Berets: Understanding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Online)


For more information:

The Threat from International Treaty Law

Unfortunately, the US Constitution allows treaties to be made, and they DO override the US Constitution.

What frightens me MOST, is how our lawmakers LIE to us and tell us that a treaty doesn't overrule the Constitution, when they know FULL WELL that it does, it's fully legal, and there's not a thing we can do about it.

"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." - Article VI US Constitution.

You are CORRECT ... the Supremacy Clause (in Article VI) allows override of the U.S. Constitution. That is why our Founders warned us about entering into treaties with foreign governments ... I can't imagine how they would feel about global organizations/governing bodies.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

While I have not read this treaty I took a Business Law class a few semesters ago and per that class there is NO LAW that is higher than or supersedes the Constitution. In this country the Constitution is now and always will be the highest law of the land.

Every treaty signed and ratified may bind us to certain limitations save where they conflict with the United States Constitution.

If that were the case I would love to see us sign and ratify a treaty saying that every nation would live within its budget...

Regards,

Doug

 

[edporch]

To All,

While I have not read this treaty I took a Business Law class a few semesters ago and per that class there is NO LAW that is higher than or supersedes the Constitution. In this country the Constitution is now and always will be the highest law of the land.

Every treaty signed and ratified may bind us to certain limitations save where they conflict with the United States Constitution.

If that were the case I would love to see us sign and ratify a treaty saying that every nation would live within its budget...

Regards,

Doug

A treaty DOES supersede the US Constitution IF we elect people who ratify it.
Do you trust the crowd we have in Washington DC not to do this if it serves their political purpose?

"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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Article VI US Constitution

 

[Libertarian01]

Edporch,

Sir, you are misreading the Article.

"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 Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every States shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Basically this is saying that all laws and treaties are backed by the Constitution unless they conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution backs up laws and treaties SAVE where they conflict with the Constitution.

Now, as to my trust? You've GOT to be kidding! Heller should have been 9-0 for Heller. Kello v New London should have been at least 8-2 for Kello. I think my trust went out w/... I can't think of anyone I would have trusted completely. Heck, I like Pres Jefferson but the Louisiana Purchase was a might imperial. I like Pres Teddy Roosevelt but the national parks are outside of the Constitution. I think I would have trusted Pres Truman. Yeah, Pres Truman. And I was born after he was out of office so it sucks to be me!

While I don't trust any of them I am simply going by how it was explained to me. Whether they follow the rules is another story. Something about the "tree of liberty" and "blood of patriots and tyrants" comes to mind.

Regards,

Doug

 

[dukeboy_318]

I vote we make a treaty that abolishes the UN?!

 

[edporch]

Edporch,

Sir, you are misreading the Article.

"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 Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every States shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Basically this is saying that all laws and treaties are backed by the Constitution unless they conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution backs up laws and treaties SAVE where they conflict with the Constitution.

Now, as to my trust? You've GOT to be kidding! Heller should have been 9-0 for Heller. Kello v New London should have been at least 8-2 for Kello. I think my trust went out w/... I can't think of anyone I would have trusted completely. Heck, I like Pres Jefferson but the Louisiana Purchase was a might imperial. I like Pres Teddy Roosevelt but the national parks are outside of the Constitution. I think I would have trusted Pres Truman. Yeah, Pres Truman. And I was born after he was out of office so it sucks to be me!

While I don't trust any of them I am simply going by how it was explained to me. Whether they follow the rules is another story. Something about the "tree of liberty" and "blood of patriots and tyrants" comes to mind.

Regards,

Doug

Doug,
I sure WANT you to be right about this and hope you are.
I guess through the years I've read it to mean that a treaty overrides the Constitution.
I'm GLAD that appears I've been wrong about this.

I apologize to everybody that my ERRANT view has misled.

 

[Wild Deuce]

Yes ... "override" is the wrong word. However, greater legal minds than me have conflicting opinions.

A snippet from one of the links provided:

..... I have tried to carefully employ the correct legal terminology of both American constitutional law and international law in the foregoing description of the status of this treaty. There are some key differences between domestic and international law—even in terminology. If the U.S. Senate would vote to approve the treaty by the requisite two-thirds majority, under our constitutional law we call that ratification, but in international law it is called accession. The reason I point this out is not to try to expound on the rather dry differences between ratification and accession, but to point out that the CRC is not a mere statement of altruism or political philosophy but is a legal instrument with binding legal consequences.

Under the most basic rule of international law, every nation that becomes a party to a treaty is obligated to perform the duties that it assumes under the terms of the treaty. Moreover, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, every treaty is superior to all internal law—including the nation’s constitution—with one important exception, which we will discuss later.

Our own Constitution reflects a variant of this same theme. Article VI of our Constitution contains this section:

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.
​

This section clearly proclaims that treaties are superior to all state laws and state constitutions to the extent that the provisions of state law are in conflict with the rules contained in the treaty.

It is especially important to note the supremacy of a treaty over all forms of state law when the subject is the rights of the child. Virtually all law governing the parent-child relationship is state law, not federal law. Thus, the Constitution itself contains the language to prove that the CRC trumps the vast majority of American law on the subject of children.

Let us now turn briefly to the question of whether the treaty would be superior to our federal Constitution and federal laws made by Congress. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution itself is superior to a treaty for the purposes of our domestic law. Again, international law contains the opposite rule—treaties trump national constitutions.

There is some debate over the issue of whether a treaty would prevail over an inconsistent act of Congress. It would be fair to conclude that treaties and federal statutes would likely be viewed of equal rank and, therefore, whichever enactment was more recent would prevail. New treaties trump old federal laws under this view involving our domestic law. However, under international law, there is no doubt that a treaty trumps a conflicting federal statute. ......

... basically, we know what our Constitution says. However, if we ratify, what will an International Court say about the supremacy of our Constitution??

 

[Marcinko]

Government Invasion of your Parental Rights

For all of those parents with kids still in school, you might want to check this out and if it bothers you, start hammering on your Senators to get in line on this issue.
It is kind of lengthy but worth the watch and follow up action.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuSc_U5VqDQ[/ame]

 

[J_Wales]

Will do.

The UN can go to hell... If It doesn't it will drag the world there with it.

 

[rambone]

For all of those parents with kids still in school, you might want to check this out and if it bothers you, start hammering on your Senators to get in line on this issue.
It is kind of lengthy but worth the watch and follow up action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuSc_U5VqDQ

Thanks for posting this. Its a good watch.

 

[lumpy39us]

Ya know there are laws on treaties, which have been created under Constitutional guidelines. It is covered under contract law, I had some issues with a debtor once and did some research, remembering now that treaties are covered rather in-depth.
A treaty is in essence a contract and in order to be legal it has to meet very strict guidelines. I find it funny how most will read one article and say it is so. What about the bill of rights?
The Constitution limits the powers of Govt, and laws enacted further ensure legal definitions and guidelines are in place with respect to the limited powers of Govt.
So as in a contract, a treaty has to involve full disclosure and be agreed upon by all parties concerned. A treaty can be nullified at anytime by either party, based on their wish and determination that it has outlived it's purpose, which is the difference from a contractual agreement.
It is our natural born right to raise our children, unencumbered.
As it stands right now one thing can be said of any such attempt to form a treaty that violates our rights,
Both parties would appear to be violating natural rights, and assuming that their decisions would be in the best interests and carry the voice of all, in violation of standing laws regarding all parties have a complete understanding of said treaty.
I can say based on the above information, I have not been given full disclosure and since it involves me and giving my natural rights over to powers that seem to be irresponsible in far to many areas, I am legally not required to give my consent for said action and based on the legal avenues for redress it has out lived it's purpose even before it was enacted.
The true answer is in defining what is a treaty and which laws apply, what are the needed actions to make a treaty legal within the bounds of those attempting to enact it.
There a zillion laws and I can be sure that this might be made irrelevant by further study!
But that is just my 2 cents.

 

[lumpy39us]

Problem solved, I found the instructions. Outside involvement isn't necessary now!
http://cdn.lolhappens.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/baby.jpg
Another great save through internet research.

 

[jeremy]

Rambone you have gotten your wish...

We are no longer going to be the Worlds Police, We are going to be the Worlds Nanny...

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Edporch,

Sir, you are misreading the Article.

"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 Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every States shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Basically this is saying that all laws and treaties are backed by the Constitution unless they conflict with the Constitution. The Constitution backs up laws and treaties SAVE where they conflict with the Constitution.

Now, as to my trust? You've GOT to be kidding! Heller should have been 9-0 for Heller. Kello v New London should have been at least 8-2 for Kello. I think my trust went out w/... I can't think of anyone I would have trusted completely. Heck, I like Pres Jefferson but the Louisiana Purchase was a might imperial. I like Pres Teddy Roosevelt but the national parks are outside of the Constitution. I think I would have trusted Pres Truman. Yeah, Pres Truman. And I was born after he was out of office so it sucks to be me!

While I don't trust any of them I am simply going by how it was explained to me. Whether they follow the rules is another story. Something about the "tree of liberty" and "blood of patriots and tyrants" comes to mind.

Regards,

Doug

I also read it to say no part of the treaties can violate ANY state constitution or even law. This would of course make sense because the fed SHOULD ONLY get as much power as the states grant it.

 

[John Galt]

Let the UN come over here and enforce their laws.