Printable Version

The CRC's Destructive Power

By Roy Hanson Jr.
January, 2010

The current administration has indicated that they would likely bring the UN Convention on The Rights of the Child (CRC) to the US Senate for ratification as soon as feasible. If the Senate ratifies the CRC, the administration of law throughout our country ultimately would have to conform to the provisions the CRC. Our President, our liberal legislators, and our courts would rely on the authority of this treaty as the "supreme law of the land" to create and enforce anti-family / anti-biblical laws and regulations, which would directly affect parent-child relationships in every family in every state.

Michael Farris, president of ParentalRights.org and chairman of HSLDA, has pointed out that "… state law must always give way to treaties. For example, in the case Missouri v. Holland, the state challenged the constitutionality of federal interference with Missouri hunting laws concerning migratory birds. Federal game officials had intervened in Missouri based on a treaty with Canada. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the treaty, and not Missouri state law, was supreme." (To further understand the unique vulnerability of the U.S. concerning the "supreme law of the land" and the CRC, read Michael Ramey's article, Waiting to Explode… at www.childandfamilyprotection.com.)

Back in 1994, the National Center for Home Education (NCHE – a part of HSLDA) issued an alert on the CRC. The CRC had been adopted by the UN in 1988 and was likely to be presented to the Senate for ratification by the Clinton Administration. The alert noted serious concerns:

"The impact of the Convention is particularly ominous in light of the fact that the United States Constitution declares treaties to be the law of the land. Under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause of Article VI '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, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.'"

"Were this convention to be enforced, the United States would be required to alter large portions of long established law to cater to the demands of the United Nations, and the panel of experts they select to define international standards for child’s rights."

In February 2009, Michael Farris told World Net Daily in an interview "…that under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, … every decision a parent makes can be reviewed by the government to determine whether it is in the child's best interest.

"'It's definitely on our doorstep,' he said. 'The left wants to make the Obama-Clinton era permanent. Treaties are a way to make it as permanent as stuff gets. It is very difficult to extract yourself from a treaty once you begin it.'

"While the treaty states that parents or legal guardians 'have primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child,' Farris said government will ultimately determine whether parents' decisions are in their children's best interest.

"'Where the child has a right fulfilled by the government, the responsibilities shift from parents to the government,' Farris said. 'The implication of all this shifting of responsibilities is that parents [would] no longer have the traditional roles of either being responsible for their children or having the right to direct their children.'

"'The government would decide what is in the best interest of a child in every case, and the CRC would be considered superior to state laws,' Farris said. 'Parents could be treated like criminals for making every-day decisions about their children's lives.'

"He said. 'If you think that your children are too young to have a Facebook account, which interferes with the right of communication, the U.N. gets to determine whether or not your decision is in the best interest of the child.'

"He continued, 'If you think your child should go to church three times a week, but the child wants to go to church once a week, the government gets to decide what it thinks is in the best interest of the children on the frequency of church attendance.'"

He said American social workers would be the ones responsible for implementation of the policies.

According to the ParentalRights.org website (www.parentalrights.org), the substance of the CRC dictates, among other things, the following:

On February 16, 1995, Madeleine Albright, then U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. signed the CRC. However, the U.S. Senate never ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would trample on rights that legitimately belong to parents, and result in strong families and, subsequently, a strong nation.

So now, some 14 to 15 years later, the Obama administration, has expressed a strong desire to see the CRC ratified. There is no "statute of limitations" on ratifying a treaty by the U.S. Senate. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a strong supporter of the CRC, and she now has direct control over the treaty's submission to the Senate for ratification, which requires a two-thirds majority vote.

What you can do.

When the CRC is introduced in the Senate for ratification, HSLDA and ParentalRights.org will be issuing alerts, and we will pass them on to those who are on our HELP Tree email list. Please see our web site at www.pheofca.org under "About Us" to sign up to receive our emails.

Please read the following articles on our web site, www.childandfamilyprotection.com:

For further detailed, up-to-date information on the CRC, and actions you can take to protect parental rights in America, please visit www.parentalrights.org.


Child and Family Protection Association
1000 Sunrise Ave, Ste 9B, #418; Roseville, CA 95661
contact@childandfamilyprotection.org

Permission is given to reprint this document or distribute it by email in its entirety without alteration. You are encouraged to link to this article on our website www.childandfamilyprotection.org.