ducks
05-14-2009, 08:41 PM
Basically the parents broke the law they would go to the un court
no the usa court
wtf
On May 7, Rep. John Lewis (GA-5) introduced House Resolution 416 calling on the U.S. Senate to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and several other U.N. treaties. At its introduction, the bill had 9 cosponsors from the urban centers of Oakland, San Jose, and Sacramento, California, New York City, Houston, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, and the suburbs of D..C. (Virginia’s 8th District). The non-voting delegate from Guam is also signed on.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, if ratified by the U.S. Senate and President Obama, would become part of “the supreme law of the land” under Article VI of our Constitution. The Supreme Court confirmed in Reid v. Covert (1957) that treaties override any conflicting state law, which in this case would include nearly all family law in America. The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children would be very much at risk. For this and many other reasons (visit ParentalRights.org) we want to see H.R. 416 soundly defeated.
The sponsors of H. Res. 416 include John Lewis (GA-5), Ed Markey (MA-7), Madeleine Bordallo (Guam), Charles Rangel (NY-15), Barbara Lee (CA-9), Mike Honda (CA-15), Doris Matsui (CA-5), Danny Davis (IL-7), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Jim Moran (VA-8), and Raul Grijalva (AZ-7).
Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8}
* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.11.
* A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.12.
* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.13.
* 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.14.
* 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.15.
* According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.16.
* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.17.
* 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.18.
* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.19.
* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.20.
# -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."
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8}#_fn11
no the usa court
wtf
On May 7, Rep. John Lewis (GA-5) introduced House Resolution 416 calling on the U.S. Senate to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and several other U.N. treaties. At its introduction, the bill had 9 cosponsors from the urban centers of Oakland, San Jose, and Sacramento, California, New York City, Houston, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, and the suburbs of D..C. (Virginia’s 8th District). The non-voting delegate from Guam is also signed on.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, if ratified by the U.S. Senate and President Obama, would become part of “the supreme law of the land” under Article VI of our Constitution. The Supreme Court confirmed in Reid v. Covert (1957) that treaties override any conflicting state law, which in this case would include nearly all family law in America. The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children would be very much at risk. For this and many other reasons (visit ParentalRights.org) we want to see H.R. 416 soundly defeated.
The sponsors of H. Res. 416 include John Lewis (GA-5), Ed Markey (MA-7), Madeleine Bordallo (Guam), Charles Rangel (NY-15), Barbara Lee (CA-9), Mike Honda (CA-15), Doris Matsui (CA-5), Danny Davis (IL-7), Sheila Jackson Lee (TX-18), Jim Moran (VA-8), and Raul Grijalva (AZ-7).
Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC:
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8}
* Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.11.
* A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.12.
* Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.13.
* 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.14.
* 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.15.
* According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.16.
* Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.17.
* 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.18.
* Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.19.
* Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.20.
# -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."
http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B56D7393-E583-4658-85E6-C1974B1A57F8}#_fn11