Home School Heartbeat Radio Program

Homeschoolers have proven that they don't readily part with their freedom. But federal courts may be undermining that freedom little by little through their use of customary international law. Join Mike Farris as he looks at this trend, today on Home School Heartbeat.

Michael Farris:
A student of American government knows that according to the Constitution, treaties become binding on the United States only if they are signed by the president and ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. Once they are ratified, treaties are a part of the supreme law of the land and hold authority equal to that of the Constitution itself.

Why, then, can the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Congress never ratified, be called a danger for homeschooling parents? Well, it's because of customary international law.

In the 2002 case of Beharry v. Reno, one federal court said that even though the Convention was never ratified, it still has an "impact on American law." The fact that virtually every other nation in the world has adopted it has made it part of customary international law, and it means that it should be considered part of American jurisprudence.

In the case In re Julie Anne, another court held that the Convention on the Rights of the Child had been ratified, despite the plain fact that it had not. The court proceeded to use the Convention as a basis for its judicial reasoning.

Looking at the record, federal courts are still divided in their opinions of whether or not the Convention on the Rights of the Child should or should not be considered part of the binding customary international law. But, as these cases show, the modern judiciary is willing to apply it.

Join us tomorrow as we examine how this could impact the freedom of homeschooling families.

I'm Mike Farris.