Home School Heartbeat Radio Program

The purpose of our justice system is to protect us from invasions of our rights. So why can't we count on the judiciary to guard our right to homeschool? Michael Farris highlights a disturbing trend in the courts, on today's Home School Heartbeat.

Michael Farris:
The need to protect parental rights in our Constitution is underscored by recent activity in the courts.

In a 2002 New York federal court case, a foreign parent claimed international law protection arising from the fact that he had children who were American citizens. The conclusions of Beharry v. Reno are not particularly alarming.

But there was a dangerous element in this case which arose from the reasoning that the judge used and the rulings of law issued as he reached his conclusions. The judge held that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was binding on the United States even though it was not ratified.

Then, in March of 2005, the Supreme Court used the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to guide their decision in Roper v. Simmons. In Roper, the Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to execute a murderer who was about seven months before his 18th birthday when he murdered a total stranger in a brazen premeditated plan. He even told his companions they'd get away with the whole thing because they were all juveniles.

As a part of their ruling on the changing views on cruel and unusual punishment, the Court used the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a guiding light to find new meaning in our Constitution. These rulings, which embrace international law rather than the original intent of the Founders, demonstrate that the UN's theories of children's rights are a looming threat.

We need to respond.

I'm Mike Farris.