Chairman’s View

On January 18, 2009, the Washington Post declared that “social progressives” expect the Obama administration “to transform the way the United States deals with matters of sex, marriage and religious values in the international arena.”

HSLDA/Kimberlee Bloom Michael P. Farris, Chairman of the Board Home School Legal Defense Association

... THIS TREATY HAS DONE ALMOST NOTHING TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF CHILDREN IN ANY MEANINGFUL FASHION. ...

While all “advances” in international law are a threat to American self-government, homeschoolers should pay closest attention to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The Post discloses a significant effort on this treaty.

Congressional liberals, including Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), have pressed the Obama team to support a pair of U.N. conventions setting out rights for women and children, and Secretary of State—designate Hillary Rodham Clinton has said she would place a far greater emphasis on promoting women’s rights “in every country, every region on every continent.”

Obama’s UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, declared her support for the women’s treaty (Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination of All Forms against Women [CEDAW]). Concerning the CRC, Rice said that “the United States would have to undertake a lengthy review of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, even while adding that it was a ‘shame’ the United States stood alone with Somalia in failing to support it.”

When the CRC was signed by the United States during the Clinton Administration, the same “lengthy review” was promised without any action ever forthcoming from that administration. However, with Hillary Clinton in the position of Secretary of State, we can anticipate that she will make the CRC a priority, since it has been her longtime goal to create a global village to raise children.

I have undertaken my own lengthy review of the CRC, which I summarize here in two key areas—the structure and the substance of this child’s rights treaty.

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

1. It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.

2. Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.

3. Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.

4. 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.

5. The CRC has some elements that are self-executing; others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.

6. The courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.

7. Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would be the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.

8. 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 policy authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.

9. Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.

10. 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.¹

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

U.N./Eskender Debebe Susan Rice, newly appointed U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has publicly stated that it is a “shame” that the U.S. stands alone with Somalia in failing to ratify the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

... GLOBAL VILLAGES WILL NEVER REPLACE GOOD PARENTS ...

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

2. 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.

3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

4. 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.

5. A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

6. This treaty has been interpreted to make it illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

8. Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services without parental knowledge or consent.²

You can read my entire 30-plus page paper that gives the full documentation and citation to legal authority for each of these propositions.

What will the “social progressives” argue? The website www.childrightscampaign.org, which proclaims itself as the central organization seeking the ratification of the CRC, discloses their strategy. They summarize nine arguments raised against the CRC and proclaim them all to be “myths.”

The child’s rights website claims to state the “truth” in response to each of these myths. This proclamation of “truth” contains only one citation to any legal authority—a Supreme Court case from the 1950s that proclaims that treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution, for domestic law purposes. However, in international courts, treaties trump even our Constitution. We are apparently supposed to just take their word for it and believe all of their other “truths,” despite their inability to muster any legal authority to justify their assertions.

Also included in my 30-plus page paper is a full discussion of each of these nine “myths” with a thorough examination of the legitimate legal authority on each point. My response to each myth consists exclusively of treaty documents, statements from the official UN Committee in charge of the enforcement of the treaty, or other sources that support and enforce the treaty.³ Here are two examples:

• The claim of the Child's Rights Campaign website:

  Myth #1: The Convention would become “Supreme Law” of the land.

  The actual text of the relevant authorities:

  1. Article VI of the U.S. Constitution: 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 …

  2. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 27: A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.

  3. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, June 8, 2006: The Committee welcomes the incorporation of numerous articles on child rights into the Constitution, which affirms that international instruments ratified by Colombia prevail over domestic legislation.⁴

• The claim of the Child’s Rights Campaign website:

  Myth #7: The CRC allows children to participate in any religion of their choosing.

  The text of actual authority:

  The government of Scotland published the following to help youth understand their rights under the CRC: You have the right to choose your own religion and beliefs. Your parents should help you think about this.⁵

There is no need for opponents of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to rely on my own analysis. It has been almost two decades since this treaty went into force. Over this period of time, two things have emerged: (1) a mountain of evidence of the radical meaning of this treaty, which comes from the mouths of those who enforce and believe in this treaty, and (2) the conclusion that this treaty has done almost nothing to improve the lives of children in any meaningful fashion. According to the UN itself, no nation has been found to be in compliance with the treaty.

The conclusion is this: if we really want to improve the lives of children—international law won’t work. Global villages will never replace good parents.

Endnotes

1. www.hslda.org/UNCRC-1.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Paragraph 8, Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child: Columbia, Committee on the Rights of the Child, 42nd sess., U.N. Doc. CRC/C/COL/CO/3 (2006).

5. 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.