This continuing series about the Maine GOP Platform took an interesting turn yesterday at the United States Supreme Court.
First, let’s cite the pertinent sections of that radical off the wall document:
Oppose any and all treaties with the UN or any other organization or country which surrenders US sovereignty. Specifically:
i. Reject the UN Treaty on Rights of the Child.
ii. Reject “LOST” the Law Of The Sea Treaty.
iii. Reject any agreement which seeks to confiscate our firearms.
Certainly most agree that firearms should not be confiscated. I want to discuss this more in another posting. There is a so-called small arms treaty that is seen by some as a confiscation of firearms. The Bush administration opposed it; the present one supports it provided there is a consensus veto. However, it does require governments to monitor arms transfers:
Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.
Same for the amply named LOST Treaty. Here’s an article from Worldwatch that admits it is a unacceptable loss of sovereignty:
The agreement also oversees an international tribunal to settle fishing, pollution, and property rights disputes, as well as the International Seabed Authority, a body formed to assign mining rights beyond the EEZs.
President Obama supports the radical Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women:
There are a number of meritorious treaties currently pending before the Senate. Some of these are clearly in the national interest, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. As president, I will make it my priority to build bipartisan consensus behind ratification of such treaties.
What does the CEDAW stand for? Try this:
In 2009, we are also celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Optional Protocol to the Convention, which empowers the CEDAW Committee to hear complaints of rights violations brought by individuals. To date, 186 countries have ratified the Convention and 98 of these countries have ratified the Optional Protocol.
All three of these treaties are bad and should be rejected. We cannot constitutionally cede power to unelected foreign boards. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land (I mean in human terms) and cannot be overridden.
But it is the “UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child” that I want to discuss. I wrote a previous posting on this question here at Virginia Right. Don’t take my word for it: Let’s start with the American Bar Association:
The American Bar Association admitted to CNSNews last November that:
“Every national government in the world, except the United States, has developed in response to the Convention of the Rights of the Child official detailed national reports on how children are fairing in their country,” Howard Davidson, director of the American Bar Association Center for Children and the Law, said at the press conference.
“And child protection and advocacy watchdog groups have been able to react to those reports by doing their own shadow reporting to the international committee on the rights of the child,” Davidson added.
Hordes of bureaucrats and anti-American special interests will be able to invade our schools (Christian ones too), prisons, hospitals and force new compliance rules on social services agencies. I cannot see this as anything but bad for America. It’s a outrageous invasion of our sovereignty.
Don’t take my word for it. Take UNICEF’S word (I added the article heading):
Article 12: When adults are making decisions that affect children, children have the right to say what they think should happen and have their opinions taken into account.
Article 14: Children have the right to think and believe what they want and to practise their religion, as long as they are not stopping other people from enjoying their rights. Parents should help guide their children in these matters. The Convention respects the rights and duties of parents in providing religious and moral guidance to their children. Religious groups around the world have expressed support for the Convention, which indicates that it in no way prevents parents from bringing their children up within a religious tradition. At the same time, the Convention recognizes that as children mature and are able to form their own views, some may question certain religious practices or cultural traditions. The Convention supports children’s right to examine their beliefs, but it also states that their right to express their beliefs implies respect for the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 15: Children have the right to meet together and to join groups and organisations, as long as it does not stop other people from enjoying their rights. In exercising their rights, children have the responsibility to respect the rights, freedoms and reputations of others.
Article 16: Children have a right to privacy. The law should protect them from attacks against their way of life, their good name, their families and their homes.
Article 43-54: These articles discuss how governments and international organizations like UNICEF should work to ensure children are protected in their rights.
I said in my prior post:
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (which requires if a foreign national is arrested he/she has a right to notify his/her embassy) has already been used as a club to condemn the US in the World Court and require police training on compliance. Only because the Supreme Court did not say so was the World Court’s decision not used to invalidate a Texas death sentence.
But we came nearly close to having this evil treaty that will give children the right to sue their parents for invasions of their bedrooms or Internet sites or making them go to church or prevent them from getting birth control or even an abortion imposed on us without a vote or election. The Supreme Court of the United States held that juvenile offenders CANNOT be sentenced for life without parole unless they killed someone. A 17 year old who commits a series of armed home invasions cannot get a life sentence without parole unless someone is killed. Never mind what the Virginia or Florida voters or representatives want. In the process, the Court said this:
The Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Part of the Court’s Eighth Amendment analysis concerns norms of proper or improper punishment. As long as it studies state and federal laws that is fine. However, an important part of this analysis is the laws of other nations. This includes the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child:
We also note, as petitioner and his amici emphasize, that Article 37(a) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Nov. 20, 1989, 1577 U. N. T. S. 3 (entered into force Sept. 2, 1990), ratified by every nation except the United States and Somalia, prohibits the imposition of “life imprisonment without possibility of release . . . for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age.” Brief for Petitioner 66; Brief for Amnesty International et al. as Amici Curiae 15–17.
The Court continues:
The Court has treated the laws and practices of other nations and international agreements as relevant to the Eighth Amendment not because those norms are binding or controlling but because the judgment of the world’s nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency demonstrates that the Court’s rationale has respected reasoning to support it.
This is how close we came to having a United Nations treaty imposed on us. In effect, Article 37(a) of this Treaty was adopted as a constitutional requirement. The Obama Administration thinks the rest of this treaty should become the law of the land:
The Obama Administration predictably endorses this treaty. Our UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, was quoted in the Huffington Post as trying to decide “when and how it might be possible to join” the treaty. For the treaty to pass, there must be a two-thirds (67) votes in the Senate.
And the left thinks the Maine GOP are wingnuts to be paranoid about world government? It demonstrates how out of touch many elites are in this country. Give me the Maine GOP any day!
POSTSCRIPT: Senator DeMint of South Carolina has introduced a resolution stating that the President should not even send this treaty to the Senate. You can help. Contact Senators Warner and Webb. Here’s how:
Contact Senators Webb and Warner and indicate your opposition to this treaty. Senator Webb’s DC office is 202 224.4024 and Senator Warner’s office is 202 224.2023. You should also email them – let them know (I believe that Senator Webb with his military background and occasional conservative tendencies, especially involving guns, is best to try to persuade) in a gentle and respectful but firm manner that this treaty endangers home schooling, the liberty to raise up your children in your religious traditions, and requires us to report to unelected foreign bureaucrats in Geneva as to our compliance.