It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


UN Treaties Fail to Respect American Sovereignty and the Constitution

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:49 AM

Much of the United Nations philosophy manifested through its charter and numerous organizations, as well as international treaties, fails to respect American sovereignty. In many cases, it runs contrary to the Constitution. Incrementally, the UN is gaining more power. The recent swine flu pandemic scare demonstrates the influence that it has over American domestic policy.


No one in government has been more consistent in their position regarding the UN and its continued threat to American sovereignty than Congressman Ron Paul. On February 24, he reintroduced H.R. 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. If passed, it would effectively pull the U.S. out of the UN. Membership in the UN only serves to undermine American sovereignty. The UN is guilty of dictating environmental, labor, trade, gun and health laws. Through its system of international treaties, the U.S. finds itself increasingly bound by UN agreements.

The UN, American Sovereignty, and the Constitution

I know we have many threads concerning this topic. I believe it is very important for people to remain informed concerning this because the majority of the masses have no idea what is going to occur.

Our Presidents & politicians have, and continue, to sell out the American people - And, most of the public have no clue!!

The United Nations: Our Children’s New Parents?

Through its various agencies and treaties, the United Nations seeks to undermine individual, as well as national sovereignty. It has been almost 15 years since President Clinton signed on to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The U.S. remains one of the last holdouts as the treaty lies dormant, yet to be ratified. The UNCRC grants children new civil, social, cultural and economic rights that could override parental decisions. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), is pushing for a vote as there is a real sense that under an Obama presidency, the UNCRC could finally be ratified.

If the UNCRC is ratified, parents could be prohibited from homeschooling and spanking their children. It undermines parental authority and gives more power to the state to further dictate how children are raised. It grants children dangerous new rights thus encouraging more rebellious behavior.

]According to the Parental Rights website, the CRC dictates the following:

*Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

*A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

*Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

*The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent's decision.

*A child's "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

*According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children's welfare.

*Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

*Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

*Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

*Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:52 AM
Please, PLEASE!!! If you have not studied what is happening with signing over our Constitutional rights to the UN - start reading these articles ASAP!!

They want our children!!! I, personally, believe they are brainwashing our children to further their agenda and, people?? The UN has the support of our President and most politicians!!

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:32 AM
I kinda don't agree with a lot of this.

But at the same time... children are people too. Rather than be told what is right and wrong, and be denied many important life experiences, like say, getting lost in some woods, or staying out all night. Children can only learn the hard way, and if parents try to set their lives out too much, then the children will be left like much of young society today - lazy and expecting everyone to do everything all the time.

Kids need independence, and they need to abuse it (to an extent) to learn the dangers of the real world.
Otherwise, they're sitting ducks.

And please.. they aren't YOUR children; they are their own people. You can't own a person.

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:57 AM
Every time this exact topic comes up... I cannot help but wonder at what age this "child" is suddenly independent from parental 'control' ?

I mean, a kid would then have every right to run into the freeway, as it would then be abuse to stop it from doing what it wants.

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:57 PM
I've seen a lot of the opposition to this coming from Christian groups around the country and honestly, I don't really think the ideas herein regarding religion are bad ones.

Children should not be forced to join their parents religion, regardless of what that religion is. In fact I personally would go so far as to advocate the Chinese idea that persons under the age of 18 cannot legally belong to any religion because they are incapable of making hard theological decisions yet.

Next, religious advocacy should never have a place in public education, again regardless of the religion. If parents wish to give their children religious education, that is their decision. However there is a major difference between educating a child about religion and compelling them to participate in it.

The final issue I'd bring up with the OP's points is that it is beyond laughable the idea that the United States well drop spending on defense to that level. In fact all we need to do is simply make the argument that defending our nation is of course in the interest of our children, and I doubt there could be any reasonable debate.

In the end I don't see this as taking away our constitutional rights (where's it written in there that you have the right to force your child to be religious anyways?) and instead it's extending civil rights to children. I still just don't see what is so frightening to parents about children being protected while still allowed to explore and grow? Is it the loss of control, or the fear that your children will no longer carry on your values if allowed to be shaped by their own experiences in society?

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:02 PM
Its hard to disagree with most of this. Hope this is pushed equally in the middle east as well.

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:43 PM
It's a good idea, in my opinion. The question is.. where do we draw the line?

I fully support the idea, that a child should not be compelled to religion. On the same argument that, "We can't abort a fetus, it's a person" we can assume that since it's a person, it should have it's own rights to decide upon religion. The only problem of course is.. Does it violate a childs rights to teach them something such as basic morallity I.e. You shouldn't hit people, killing someone is wrong.. ect.

In my personal opinion, I think christian's are afraid of this, because once you can think logically, you are probably less likely to choose religion.

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by mystiq

It won't be allowed in the mid-east. The tenants of Islam will not allow it. The children and all other property belong to Allah. Trying to force this on the mid-east will inevitably cause a major war and not a small one either!! The only ones to loose with this proposition will be the US. This and World Poverty Act and several other UN proposals will completely denude our Constitution because of the misguided wording of Article VI Section 2 of the Constitution. We should not be a ball pushed and pulled by the rest of the world because they don't like the USA. Leave us the hell alone and hopefully we will leave you alone. We'll see who still has freedom when its over!

edit to say: The UN has done such a great job of all the things they've done in the past. Darfur, most of Africa, Yup, they know how to screw thing up real good. As long as its US money being spent, why shouldn't they demand the US knuckle under!!

[edit on 5/9/2009 by ZindoDoone]

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 06:43 PM
reply to post by Champagne

Star and Flag for you

May I also suggets " Letter to the Sheeple From the Globalists NWO"
which is an alarming but true letter written in satire ( I believe) to show people how the NWO elitist REALLY think of us.

And the deal about 'our children not being our own' is real


Some of you think you may escape by buying some land in the country and growing a garden. Let me remind you that you still pay us ground rent. Oh, you may call it property taxes, but it still goes to us. You see, you need money no matter what you do. If you fail to pay your ground rent to us, we will take your land and sell it to someone who will pay us. Do you think we cannot do this?

And with your ground rent we pay for the indoctrination of your children in the public schools we have set up. We want them to grow up well trained into the system of our thinking. Your children will learn what we want them to learn, when we want them to learn it, and you pay for it through your ground rent.

Those funds are also used for other projects we have in mind and our contractors are paid handsomely for their work. You may doubt that we own your children, or have such control, but you will find that we do. We can declare that you abuse your children when you spank them and have them confiscated.

If they do not show up for school indoctrination, we can accuse you of neglect, thereby, giving them to us. Your children are not yours. They are ours. You must inoculate them, you must bring them to our hospitals if we decree or we will take them from you. You know this and we know this.



[edit on 9-5-2009 by Butter Cookie]

[edit on 9-5-2009 by Butter Cookie]

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:17 PM

Originally posted by mystiq
Its hard to disagree with most of this. Hope this is pushed equally in the middle east as well.

Oh in a perfect world! Change is probably going to come far slower to the countries where religion is still a massive political tool however.

As for where to draw the line, there are cultural universals that sociologists and anthropologists agree upon across the planet as to what the basic morals of humanity are. These are great things to teach all children worldwide, and local social mores are of course still going to be learned by children too. Here in America I believe we'd be loath to let go of our ideals of personal freedom and civil service, and nobody is making us either.

If you read the treaty it actually leaves a lot of wiggle room for local customs and ideologies. It's only a matter of what is deemed psychologically and physiologically healthy for the child that is really covered.

Another thing a lot of people are getting bent out of shape on involves spanking. I believe however that if you cannot control your child without resorting to physical punishment, you're in need of a parenting class or two. So I don't really see any problem with it.

Finally international treaties do not, in my view, weaken the Constitution in their nature alone. All modern nations have to form agreements with other nations in order to live within our planet. While we should be careful as to what we sign, the fact that we do make these agreements does not, in and of itself, negate either our independence or sovereignty.

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 04:30 PM
Speaking of American sovereignty whats going on with Oklahoma? I heard a 30 second snippet on NBC about them claiming sovereignty or something. What does that mean? I havent heard anything else since then. Also Texas Governor Rick Perry was on a morning radio show last week claiming Texas would seceed (not sure if i spelled seceed right) from the US if things get worse. What is going on?

posted on May, 11 2009 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by MoreFunky85

Many citizens are coming to their senses and realizing that the Washington District of Criminals is taking excessive power that under the 10th Amendment they do not have the right to. So they are exercising the right of redress and telling the clowns in DC that they have had enough and that we as citizens of those states will leave this union and ignore any laws that are deemed only for the states to pass and enforce.


[edit on 5/11/2009 by ZindoDoone]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 01:21 AM
The UNCRC says none of that, except for the children being able to make their own decisions as to their religion, and that the education of the child has to be watched by the government. The reason this is done is so that every child learns more about the world around them, and learns to respect others' rights. Basically it wouldn't be any different than it is now - children being brought up in a religion, but able to leave it when they are old enough, and the government making sure every child gets a good education - or what the state considers a good education. Having been homeschooled myself, I know that my parents had to let the homeschool academy know what I was learning, and the homeschooling academy, in turn, let the government know.

Here's a link to what the UNCRC actually says:

[edit on 12-5-2009 by MoonChild02]

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 02:24 AM
reply to post by MoonChild02

At last, someone else who actually read the thing! Thank you, MoonChild02 and also thanks for bringing responsible homeschooling into this too. I believe there has to be some level of oversight of parents, even more so for ones that do homeschool their kids.

new topics

top topics


log in