Ratifying U.N. If Obama Signs UN Treaty, Parental Rights Are Gone

[nerdy_guy]

Sen. DeMint: Ratifying U.N. Children�s Rights Treaty Would Turn Parental Rights �Over to International Community�

Washington (CNSNews.com) - Sen. Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) said that if President Barack Obama gets his way and the Senate ratifies the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the precedent would be set to place parental rights under the jurisdiction of the international community.

�We believe we need to take clear action here in Congress to protect the rights of parents to raise their children," DeMint said at a Wednesday panel discussion. "This treaty would, in fact, establish a precedent that those rights have been given over to the international community."

DeMint is lead sponsor of S. Res. 519, a resolution to protect parental rights, which is co-sponsored by 30 senators total. Only four more senators need to sign on to inform President Obama that he does not have enough votes in the Senate to ratify the treaty, DeMint said.

DeMint has also introduced a joint resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment to protect parental rights.

Under Article 2, Section 2 of the U. S. Constitution, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate for them to take effect.

The U.N. adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child on Nov. 20, 1989. By Sept. 2, 1990, 20 nations signed on to enforce the treaty. Currently, with the exception of the United States and Somalia, 193 nations have signed on to enforce it.

Nations that ratify U.N. treaties are bound to adhere to them by international law.

The convention established an 18-member panel to oversee children�s rights in nations that are part of the treaty. If approved by the Senate, the United States would fall under the jurisdiction of this panel.

DeMint said the threat to parental rights is �not some theoretical threat.�

He also said that ratification of the treaty would be �a terrible precedent� not just for parental rights, �but in other areas that we�ve looked at.�

�It submits our federal laws, our national laws to this treaty,� DeMint told CNSNews.com. �And the fact is that we don�t know exactly how it�s going to run, but we know how bureaucracy works. Once a precedent is established and we have yielded control, we know that it will continue to grow. So the precedent is almost worse than the immediate details.�

DeMint also said that the treaty is superfluous because there are laws already that safeguard abused children in the United States.

�We have laws in place,� DeMint said. �And when we have a parent that abuses a child, in our country, we have laws to protect our children. So we don�t need an international law that was developed for a third world country.�

Asked by a reporter how to hold child abusers accountable, given high levels of child abuse in the U.S., according to statistics, DeMint said that the social services system may not be perfect, but that it is at least under U.S. control.

�The fact that there�s not perfection in our system does not mean that we go to the United Nations for help,� he added.

While DeMint is in the forefront of opposition to the convention, liberal Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is leading the charge for its adoption.

During the Senate confirmation hearing of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, held in January of 2009, Boxer told Rice the treaty would protect "the most vulnerable people of society."

"Children deserve basic human rights,� Boxer said at the time, �and the convention protects children's rights by setting some standards here so that the most vulnerable people of society will be protected."

Boxer also labeled the fact that only the United States and Somalia are non-participants to the treaty as a �shame.�

Boxer has urged the Obama administration to review the treaty for the purpose of adopting it. The United States is already a part of two optional provisions in the treaty, namely relating to child prostitution and child soldiers. Boxer, however, is pushing for full participation in the treaty.

DeMint said there is a �pervasive attitude� in Washington at present that the federal government has �complete control over everything.� The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, he said, is government intrusion to the last degree.

�If the government, or even the international community, tell you how to raise your children here in America, is there anything that�s off limits?� DeMint asked.

[vashti]

I'm not really worried about parents "losing their rights" since they shouldn't have the right to abuse children anyway, but I am loathe to allow the UN any more "power" or legitimacy than they already have. They screw up everything as it is.

[hurt_confuzd]

You only hate the UN because they represent a valid opinion of Israel.

Too bad they don't actually do anything about it.

[vashti]

You only LIKE the UN because of their anti-Israel bias.

[LailaK]

The only countries that refuse to sign are the US and a country where parents habitually perform female circumcision on their young girls. -_-

I agree that the UN is incredibly imperfect but I personally feel that most adults (including "precious" Americans) are too f*cked in the head to be allowed the right to raise children how they see fit. We need more laws and boundaries to protect the innocent.

[nerdy_guy]

I think the point of Sen. DeMint is that if Americans are okay with transferring this law to the U.N. Now, You wouldn't know what rights are gonna get transferred next.

[hurt_confuzd]

You only LIKE the UN because of their anti-Israel bias.

That's the only thing they're good for.

[vashti]

That's the only thing they're good for.

True, if you're Arab, and your politics lean that way..

[hurt_confuzd]

True, if you're Arab, and your politics lean that way..

I'm shocked that you got your your/you're selection right this time.

The end of Israel wouldn't be good for just the 300 million Arabs, but for anyone who wants peace in the region.

[vashti]

I'm shocked that you got your your/you're selection right this time.

The end of Israel wouldn't be good for just the 300 million Arabs, but for anyone who wants peace in the region.

yeah, like there will ever be peace there? Because the suunis and the shiites are best buddies? HAHAHAHAHA

They need Israel to be there as a common enemy to keep from killing each other

[Mish]

Wow, imagine that, US ratifying a convention it signed in 1995! And leaving Somalia as the only country in the world which hasn't ratified it yet. What horrors await?

[vashti]

hahah

who erased hurt_confuzd's post about his balls?

[hurt_confuzd]

I did. I didn't want you to explode and send me a PM in a fit of rage.

[vashti]

why would I do that? you conceded I am right. (as usual.)