Moving toward a world government:  Boxer Seeks to Ratify U.N. Treaty That May Erode U.S. Rights
Sen. Barbara Boxer is pushing the Obama administration to move forward with ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a controversial treaty that has never gained much support in the U.S.

Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.

The California Democrat is pushing the Obama administration to review the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, a nearly 20-year-old international agreement that has been foundering on American shores since it was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995 but never ratified.

Critics say the treaty, which creates “the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” and outlaws the “arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her privacy,” intrudes on the family and strips parents of the power to raise their children without government interference.

Nearly every country in the world is party to it — only the U.S. and Somalia are not — but the convention has gained little support in the U.S. and never been sent to the Senate for ratification.

Why should the US sign on?  Because if we don’t, people in other countries will behave badly toward children.

Proponents of the convention in the U.S. stress that it will help secure human rights abroad.

“Now, all you have to do is look around the world and see these girls that are having acid thrown in their face,” Boxer said in January, implying that the U.S. refusal to come aboard has led to abuses elsewhere.

Why shouldn’t the US sign on?  Because American children will become wards of the UN nannystate.

Because of the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution, all treaties are rendered “the supreme law of the land,” superseding preexisting state and federal statutes. Any rights or laws established by the U.N. convention could then be argued to hold sway in the United States.

“To the extent that an outside body, a group of unaccountable so-called experts in Switzerland have a say over how children in America should be raised, educated and disciplined — that is an erosion of American sovereignty,” said Steven Groves, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

Parental rights groups are similarly stirred; they see in the U.N. convention a threat that the government will meddle with even the simplest freedoms to raise their children as they see fit.

“Whether you ground your kids for smoking marijuana, whether you take them to church, whether you let them go to junior prom, all of those things . . . will be the government’s decision,” said Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org. “It will affect every parent who’s told their children to do the dishes.”

Groves said that erosion has already begun, as the Supreme Court has referred to the wide acceptance of the child-rights law in conferring legal protections on minors in the U.S.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing the majority opinion in the 2005 decision banning the death penalty for minors, noted that “every country in the world has ratified [the convention] save for the United States and Somalia.”

How well does it work?

But when acceding to the convention, countries are able to sign so-called RUDs — reservations, understandings and declarations — that can hinder or negate responsibilities they would otherwise be bound to follow.

Most majority Muslim nations express reservations on all provisions of the convention that are incompatible with Islamic Sharia law, which takes much of the teeth out of the treaty. Acid attacks on girls continue in Afghanistan, which is already party to the convention.

The U.N. itself admits that there is no way for it to enforce its own laws and protect children.

To listen to these people, you’d think we have no Constitution, Bill of Rights, laws or justice system of our own.  Why is Senator Boxer so enthusiastic about abdicating the government’s responsibility to govern?  Maybe because it will leave her and like-minded politicians more time to spread our wealth around.

H/T Jawa Report

Advertisements