State Department Promises Move Toward CRC Ratification

On March 10, the Obama administration told the UN Human Rights Council that it supports the UNHRC’s recommendations that the United States should “ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC].” Moreover, the administration promised that it “intend[s] to review how we could move toward its ratification.”

In the meantime, SR 99 opposing ratification of the CRC is very close to its first major milestone. As of yesterday, Senator Jim DeMint’s resolution, which expresses the reasons Senators oppose the UN child rights treaty, has 32 cosponsors, with 2 more senators committed to sign next Monday.

This is great news – but it is not enough!

We need to recognize that the Obama administration and the UN will not give up so easily. Thirty-four senators signed a similar measure regarding the Panama Canal treaty a few years ago, and the administration twisted arms until enough changed their minds to ratify that controversial treaty.

We cannot be satisfied with 32 Senators, or even with 34. We need to aim for at least 40 co-sponsors of SR 99 to make sure that the CRC cannot move forward in this term of Congress.

Pro-CRC States?

Additionally, state legislators in both Illinois and Rhode Island have introduced resolutions calling for the ratification of the CRC. Amazingly, the Rhode Island resolution admits, “If enacted, the [CRC] would become superior to the laws of the states and their judicial systems, and would be subordinate only to the text of the [U.S.] Constitution.”

Any state legislator who wants a treaty to become superior to his or her own state’s law is confessing the inability to enact state laws that are sufficient to protect children. They should do the honorable thing and resign if they feel so incompetent.

[Note: A treaty is limited to the restrictions and limitations of the Constitution. They cannot violate as politicians regulary do the letter of the supreme law and doing is to break the law. Because the Constitution does not give the federal government any explicit or implicit rights over parents, families, and their children, the treaty violates the Constitution. Most state constitutions do not give such authority state governments either. It seems to me therefore that the CRC is an act approaching criminality in the name of protecting children from parents. Yet, at the same time, such politicians are willing to legitimate sexual perverse role models and justify pedophiles as non-traditional parent/familes in the name of equality. Isn’t that a crime against nature and humanity?]

Source: Parental Rights Organization, March 22, 2011.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *