Remember meForgot password?
    Log in with Twitter

article imageSenator Boxer Pushes Legislation Endangering American Sovereignty

By Samantha A. Torrence     Mar 28, 2009 in Politics
The United States is one of two countries who have not ratified a treaty that is pushed as a "children's rights" treaty. Senator Barbara Boxer is said to bring back the legislation that is supported by Barack Obama.
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. - Article VI "The Supremacy Clause"
The founders of America warned the young country against foreign entanglements. Unfortunately by the late 1800's Americans transposed the meaning to only take into account Europe and the young country tried to protect interests in Latin America. Those interests then expanded to Asia, and the rest is history. It is for this reason the United States founding fathers included in the constitution the language binding American treaties as the Supreme Law of the land. This makes the consideration and signing of any treaty in America more crucial than in many other countries that do not have this stipulation within their laws.
A treaty receiving mild attention on the Internet is the U.N. Convention on the Rights of a Child. The treaty has been ratified by 193 countries world wide leaving The United States of America and Somalia as the last countries holding back ratification. Somalia has not had a recognized government to give credence to adherence of a treaty, and the United States has had a majority of the citizenry as represented by politicians against the ratification of said treaty. However, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) has sought to expedite the process of ratification under the Obama Administration that has shown support for her efforts
"It's embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land," Obama said. "I will review this and other treaties to ensure the United States resumes its global leadership in human rights."
The UNCRC treaty provides what are considered human rights of all children. Within the language the treaty would require all contested parental decisions by a child come before an 18 person panel based in Geneva. All parental decisions would be considered secondary to that of the state, federal, and international government in any matter that could be construed to fit within the parameters of the treaty.
Opponents of the UNCRC claim that not only are parental rights in danger, but the sovereignty of America at the hands of an international panel. Proponents argue that the treaty could further health coverage for children and is a great step in furthering human rights worldwide.
There is further argument of whether parental rights exist considering that the Constitution does not name them specifically. The American Founding Fathers considered all rights to come from God to the people, the people only lend those rights to the government. Pastor Caleb Kinely touched upon this subject on his personal blog.
My wife and I homeschool our two children and teach them the word of God and ways of God. We would have it no other way. It is our firm belief that it was God who blessed my wife and I with our beautiful children through a bodily function he created called reproduction, along with the command to "be fruitful and multiply." This means that God created 'our' children through us (my wife and I). In other words, God placed in man and woman an inalienable right to procreate through love. He is the creator, and my wife and I are the 'procreators.' Our children are a holy gift from God and to put it bluntly, they're ours (God's included). Unfortunately, there are those servants and serpents of the false god Murdoch who believe, teach, and make rule's that are contrary to God, parental rights, and the freedom guaranteed to all American's in the U.S. Constitution.
The argument of whether rights not listed in the Constitution is as old as the country itself. While the Constitution does say in Amendment IX "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and Amendment X "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," the two amendments are respected only in lip service. Case in point, a ruling by Supreme Court Justice O'Connor confirmed parental rights as a fundamental human right, in the case of Troxel vs. Granville [however, Justice Scalia wrote an opposing opinion to the case.
In my view, a right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children is among the “unalienable Rights” with which the Declaration of Independence proclaims “all Men … are endowed by their Creator.” And in my view that right is also among the “othe[r] [rights] retained by the people” which the Ninth Amendment says the Constitution’s enumeration of rights “shall not be construed to deny or disparage.” The Declaration of Independence, however, is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution’s refusal to “deny or disparage” other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people. Consequently, while I would think it entirely compatible with the commitment to representative democracy set forth in the founding documents to argue, in legislative chambers or in electoral campaigns, that the state has no power to interfere with parents’ authority over the rearing of their children, I do not believe that the power which the Constitution confers upon me as a judge entitles me to deny legal effect to laws that (in my view) infringe upon what is (in my view) that unenumerated right.
The argument of listing rights under the Bill of Rights was a major contention in the founding of the nation and is one of the major catalysts of the two party system starting with the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists demanded that a Bill of Rights be established to protect the rights of the citizens, while the Federalists were concerned that defining rights in such a manner would restrict the rights of the citizens. Amendments IX and X were meant to prevent the restriction of non-listed rights from happening.
Still the Constitution does have the Due Process Clause as well, which in the 1920's was ruled to protect the rights of parents to educate and raise their children. Yet the protections in the constitution as ruled by the judicial system would become null and void under the UNCRC which in all intents and purposes would be considered an Amendment to the Constitution.
More about American sovereignty, Barbara boxer, Parental rights
More news from
Latest News
Top News