It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
the terms are open to interpretation and not in explicit text, this enables a person, the state, or others to define on an ongoing basis what the terms mean.
Whilst it is a noble treaty it can and has been used against parents.
Children are raised by the parents, they do not belong to the state nor should the rights of the parent be usurped by a treaty.
Can I ask what parts of the constitution does it protect ? have you all read the treaty and placed it beside the constitution and read both together ?
Can I also ask if you have read the views of professors and lawyers regarding this matter?
Originally posted by wcitizen
reply to post by Common Good
Now, why doesn't that same rule apply to Afghans or Iraqi's???
Why doesn't US get the h--l out of their countries and let Afghans and Iraqi's police and run their own countries???
Oh no, America has the right to interfere anywhere in the world, to bomb and kill at will whenever it wants - the world is there to serve America, right?
But NO-ONE has the right to interfere with America, right?
The only people who have the right to police Afghans are Afghans. End of story.
The only people who have the right to police Iraqis are Iraqis. End of story.
Or does hypocrisy rule OK for US?
[edit on 22-8-2010 by wcitizen]
Originally posted by Krzyzmo
reply to post by Fatality
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
“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.”
www.cnsnews.com...
So ask your congressman for a guarantee this won't tread on parental rights, that is if they read the treaty of course.
Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Sens. Jon Kyl and John McCain of Arizona, Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Sens. Mike Crapo and James Risch of Idaho, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts of Kansas, Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, Sens. Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker of Mississippi, Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Sen. John Ensign of Nevada, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Sens. Tom Coburn and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Sens. Jim DeMint and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, Sens. Robert Bennett and Orrin Hatch of Utah and Sens. John Barrasso and Michael Enzi of Wyoming.
John Ensign, Senator from Nevada, refuses to resign after confessing to an extramarital affair with a married staffer, claiming she was trying to extort him.[13] Later, it was learned he was attempting to pay her and her husband off through his parents and finding them jobs.
......
David Vitter, junior Senator from Louisiana, became one of the few high-profile politicians to be implicated as a client of "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey.[50]
....
Jim Bunn: With his success due in great part to support from the Christian Coalition, Bunn won his congressional seat, then immediately ditched his wife (and mother of his five children), married a staffer, and put his new wife on the state payroll for the unheard-of salary of $97,500.
......
Coburn: Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) Uses Religious “Privilege” to Hide What He Knows About John Ensign’s Sex Scandal
.....
Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
my prior posting and your own research i ask you the converse where does it prove you are right and maybe you can spend time convincing me.
Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by BANANAMONTANA
None of my business, but what sort of convincing do you want? Anything that affords more rights to and protects children is a good thing. As it stands now, they are little more than "property".
It is the parents who sometimes leave a lot to be desired and we all know those parents.
Yet we protect the sovereign right of parents over their children no matter how bad they may be???
We don't want to know what goes on behind closed doors and to a certain extent I don't want to know...BUT we should make every adult right available to children and not make it easy to abuse, assault or neglect them.
This "factual" avoidance and siding with parents over children exclusively is why we often hear about horrible unthinkable atrocities happening to children after the fact and when it is too late to protect them.
Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
my prior posting and your own research i ask you the converse where does it prove you are right and maybe you can spend time convincing me.
Look I obviously have read the treaty and I am familiar with the constitution. I don't see any possible conflict. It's not that I am lazy and don't want to do what you asked for; I simply don't see how this should be done. I don't know how I can prove to you that this convention and the constitution are not in conflict. I find it hard to prove negatives. That's why it's more logical to aks the people who see a conflict to point it out, then I could make an argument that there is none.
There's no way to prove a negative as "they are not in conflict". Proving that they are in conflict, OTO (given that they really are) would be very easy.
The thing you linked to from Demint is very misleading. As I said the convention does not establish a multilateral legal body with any authority. The only proactive part of the treaty is the establishment of a commission that would right annual reports about the situation of children's rights in the world - just as the human rights commission does.
The human rights convention and its commission is a very good analogy. They condemned the US for what they did in Abu Ghraib since it was against human rights. But they had neither the power nor the authority to sanction the US, or to punish them, or to indict them, or to change the existing laws or to change the opionion of the Bush torture junta. They could point out violations, but they could not stop them. The idea behind the convention is similiar and their power would be the same.
there's really no proactive part to the treaty. It is solely establishing an international norm very much like the international norms of human rights. Many people have profited greatly in front of the courts by invoking the human rights convention, while the courts lost much of their power to violate human rights arbitrarily.
Being skeptic about internationalism is a good thing. But skepticism should not be a blanket view; it is always important to study the individual material being discussed.
Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
Originally posted by rusethorcain
reply to post by BANANAMONTANA
None of my business, but what sort of convincing do you want? Anything that affords more rights to and protects children is a good thing. As it stands now, they are little more than "property".
It is the parents who sometimes leave a lot to be desired and we all know those parents.
Yet we protect the sovereign right of parents over their children no matter how bad they may be???
We don't want to know what goes on behind closed doors and to a certain extent I don't want to know...BUT we should make every adult right available to children and not make it easy to abuse, assault or neglect them.
This "factual" avoidance and siding with parents over children exclusively is why we often hear about horrible unthinkable atrocities happening to children after the fact and when it is too late to protect them.
I think you missed the point of my post.
I dont ascribe to fear led " the parents are eating their children" back door legislation.
You have not ratified this treaty, in europe it is being used against parents for homeschooling...
now please point out to me where I said children should not be protected.
and when did children become property? and why should you or anyone else know what goes on behind doors apart from your own?
I am confused what are you asking for?
Originally posted by BANANAMONTANA
i am lazy .. touche
I do know this has been used against homeschooling in europe + a database of all children in the UK which was unplugged weeks ago as it in rather an ironic fashion breached the privacy of children but that did not matter to the UK government at the time. It was also found to be a potential for back door ID cards of the future.
I did not say treaty was a bad thing, but i do think that legislation that filters from treaties such as this, at times has an adverse effect and if it is not explicit it is open for the judge to rule as they see fit or the case of the UK how a city or county council will see fit.
I was curious how it might be read in the future and how it may impact homeschooling... just one example.
Originally posted by Common Good
WTF is this world comming to?
LEAVE OUR FAMILIES ALONE.
The only people who need to police Americans, are other Americans.
End of Story.