Skip to content


May 20, 2010
For those following the Supreme Court and Federal Court decisions in general it is no surprise that the Courts have been making up law for years.  There is no oversight.  Bad judges stay on the Court for life, and the right to petition the government and courts for redress has been virtually eliminated as the Supreme Court takes less than 1% of all cases and has absolutely discretion on what cases it will review.
In fact Supreme Court Justices have stated that it is more important to be consistently wrong then to actually get the law right. 

Citing unapproved treaty is ‘act of most fundamental reordering of legal system’

Picture from:

The fundamentals of the U.S. Constitution possibly have been shoved one step closer to irrelevance by the U.S. Supreme Court, which yesterday cited an international treaty that has not been adopted in the U.S. as support for its opinion.

The issue is raising alarms for those who have been fighting the trend toward adopting “international” standards for American jurisprudence rather than relying on a strict application of the Constitution.

“It is bad enough for the Supreme Court to engage in judicial activism,” said Michael Farris, of the Home School Legal Defense Association. “It is far worse when the justices employ international law in support of their far-reaching edicts.

“We have not ratified the U.N. child’s rights treaty – its provisions should not be finding their way into Supreme Court decisions,” he said.

Roger Kiska, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund who is based in Europe, said the Supreme Court’s use of an unadopted precedent “completely overlooks the checks and balances system that is established by the U.S. Constitution.”

It’s not the first time the court has done it, and, “It’s never amounted to any good,” he said in a telephone interview from his base of operations in Europe. “It leans toward social radicalism.”

He said there are reasons why the U.S. never adopted the U.N. convention, citing a recent case in Sweden in which a child was taken away from his home because his parents were homeschooling him, and other issues.

The child, Domenic Johanssen, has been in the custody of social services agents for almost a year now as his parents have fought unsuccessfully for his return home.




The doctrine called parens patriae  translates to father of the nation or father of the country.  This is where the king or in america the state (or sovereign) assumes a parental role over all children.  Under this theory which the U.S. (and SCOTUS) apparently now subscribes to, children do not belong to the parents, but are in essence lent to the parents by the state (or sovereign) as long as the parents conduct themselves in a manner acceptable to the state.  Thus under this theory parental rights are derived from the government where government has the power to grant the gift of custody and guardianship to the keepers of the child (whoever the state determines the keepers of the child should be).  Thus the state also has the power to terminate that grant of gift of custody.  Thus the grant or gift becomes movable and children chattel or property.  


The Parental Rights organization is working in support of a plan submitted by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., whose S. Res. 519 is urging President Obama to refrain from sending the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child to the U.S. Senate for a ratification vote.

“S. Res. 519 seeks to put the Senate of the United States on record that American law and only American law should govern our families and our juvenile courts,” Farris said. “I hope that every American who believes that we should remain a self-governing nation will call their senators today to urge them to become a co-sponsor of S. Res. 519.”

The proposal expresses “the sense of the Senate that the primary safeguard for the well-being and protection of children is the family, and that the primary safeguards for the legal rights of children in the United States are the Constitutions of the United States and the several states, and that, because the use of international treaties to govern policy in the United States on families and children is contrary to principles of self-government and federalism.”

DeMint’s proposal explains Professor Geraldine Van Bueren, the author of the principal textbook on the international rights of the child and a participant in the drafting of the convention, has described the “‘best interest of the child standard’ in the treaty as ‘provid[ing] decision and policy makers with the authority to substitute their own decisions for either the child’s or the parents.'”

The U.N. already has ruled the United Kingdom in violation of the convention for allowing parents to opt their own children out of a sex education course and determined both Indonesia and Egypt out of compliance because of the way those nations structured their national budgets.

A year ago, the HSLDA reported Graham Badman generated a report reviewed by the U.K. government that stated the UNCRC “gives children and young people over 40 substantive rights which include the right to express their views freely, the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas.”

If the Supreme Court does not want to impose life sentences with out parole on juveniles, fine, but do it honestly and without citing an unratified U.N. treaty as “authority” for the decision.


Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: