Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Parental Rights Amendment - Why We Should Reject It Along With The UN Treaty - CRC

34 Senators.
34 Senators is all this would take to end this thing once and for all!

I had a post about the Parental Rights Amendment before - but Dana over at Principled Discovery wrote a terrific post about it and the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child that I'd like to share:
Last week, Michael Farris [of HSLDA] tweeted that Senator Jim DeMint had introduced the parental rights amendment into the Senate, followed by a Friday tweet announcing that the parental rights amendment had garnered 100 supporters in the House.
Ratifying the treaty [UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child] requires 2/3 of the Senate to vote for it. Sixty seven senators. An amendment, on the other hand, will require 2/3 of the House, 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states to sign on to an amendment which hasn’t seen considerable success even at the state level. At the federal level, it will stall for all the same reasons it stalled in state legislatures. In the meantime, we will lose valuable time which we could be using to research the treaty, determine its strengths and weaknesses and formulate a reasoned response.

34 Senators.

34 Senators is all it would take to stop the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child from being ratified as the Supreme law of the land.... it would stop it dead in its tracks (if in fact it ever does come up for a vote this fall or spring as "predicted' by HSLDA's Mr. Farris)

Heaven knows there are enough horrendous consequences happening in foreign countries who have already ratified this monstrosity of a treaty, that we can point out those problems to our Senators.

Why are we not actively pursuing educating these 34 Senators as to why the UN CRC is a horrible piece of legislation to begin with? This is what needs to be done - and now!

Why instead are we arguing and muddling around with a "Constitutional fix" that will clear the road for the courts to say that the federal government has the right to regulate the rights of parents?

Why are HSLDA and Eagle Forum and other powerful lobbying groups chasing after hundreds of Congressmen when all they need to do is convince 34 Senators to just say NO? ?? Why?
Why are they not specifically telling Senators to vote NO on the CRC?
Where is that in their articles and literature?
Why do they appear to be steeped in fear mongering to garner support for this Parental Rights Amendment when all they need to do is convince 34 Senators that CRC would be a very bad treaty for our country to ratify?

Our country has rejected treaties before, in fact this is from the government's website regarding treaties:
The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its history. Many others, however, have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat. .... The Senate may also amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further negotiate the treaty.
We ought to be concentrating on getting the Senate to reject this treaty all together, as they have to others in the past. (more on Treaties here)

Here is the reason why the Parental Rights Amendment approach is bad news for parents across this country:

Making the “rights of parents” fundamental rights in the U.S. Constitution raises those rights to the federal level. The federal government then is better able to assume a power to regulate those rights. The Supreme Court already has “interpreted” the right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children as something that can be regulated by government. Up until now, however, the courts have said that it is up to the States to regulate that right. We know that it has always been easier to fight bad legislation on a state level rather then at a federal level. Power to regulate should be kept as local as possible for just this reason. Parents have much better access to state representatives over US Congressmen.

How would you like to see a Federal Department of Child Protective Services established to insure that parents are not neglecting their children? The Parental Rights Amendment would give the federal government that authority to determine whether parents are neglecting their children! An agency will be set up, along with it's bureaucracy just like at the state level. The PRA will give the federal courts the authority and the standards by which these federal neglect cases will be adjudicated.

Please.... Let’s not give the federal government any more ammunition to wrest power from the people. Both the PRA and the CRC are horrible pieces of legislation. Both should be avoided entirely!

HSLDA and their cohorts are not doing us any favors at all in promoting PRA. They are doing what they have done all along on the state level - giving more power and concessions to the government, where it doesn't belong in the first place, in trade for some imagined "security" - Well, we know how that has ended up for many of us in our own states regarding homeschooling (some have even documented it) ... more regulation. You give an inch and the government takes more and more over the years. We also know how hard it is to undo bad legislation.

All we need to do is get 34 Senators to just say NO to CRC now! I am positive that we can give them a very sound reason as to why this treaty should be rejected all together. So why isn't HSLDA putting all of their re$ource$ and effort$ into doing just that? I wonder what's in it for HSLDA to pursue federal legislation, which is what they appear to have been doing all along on other measures, specifically regarding homeschooling .... can you think of a rea$on? What benefits or interest might they have in the establishment of a Federal Department of Child Protective Services?

It would appear that through the years HSLDA has been trying to shape a federal definition of homeschooling and parenting, a definition that clearly is going to affect us all. Many of us opposed to the federalization of homeschooling (and now of parenting) have long maintained that a continued federal definition or legislation is not helping homeschooling (and now parenting) in this country, even if one person or one hundred thousand people are being helped. It simply does not belong in the federal arena, no matter how well-intentioned. By the way, I hear that high profile Federal Law$uit$ can be quite lucrative. Interesting to note too that some have argued that "HSLDA-inspired" state legislation regarding home education have not helped parents to reclaim their constitutional right to educate their children at home without state interference. Therefore, HSLDA's critics now ask, why would anyone think that an HSLDA-inspired Parental Rights Amendment would garner us any better result on the federal level? Quite frankly, as a parent, I am very concerned about that. A slippery slope is probably even more slippery in Washington DC than it is in my own state house!

In any case, the PRA legislation is just as bad as CRC - if not worse - for us all. It cedes our parental rights to the federal government and opens it up to future federal regulation. Let's not hitch our star to that dangerous and ill conceived wagon. I am not interested in seeing the establishment of a Federal Department of Child Protective Services.

34 Senators.
Write to them today.
34 Senators.
Tell them why they should reject the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child.
Let's be done with this in the simple manner that our Constitution already provides for.

There are only a hundred Senators.
We only need 34.

There are millions of us.

The time to act is now.

Be your own lobbyist - Write to them today
Start with Senator Jim DeMint.

Find out more at Stop the Treaty