Originally Posted by t-elaine
For my own interest and to further my understanding I have been doing some searching for more information and thought I would post some things that I found.
First of all, can someone please help me undertand this statement in the Constitution and how it could be true that if a treaty were signed it could never override the laws of our land:
I didn't say that. To quote myself.
|IF a country signs an international treaty (and there are plenty that the US has not signed), then it is voluntarily agreeing to the terms of that treaty - which may result in their laws changing.
Think "copy and paste" not overrule.
|And I noticed this too, It does not take that much to sign a treaty - only the president and 2/3s of the PRESENT Senators.
you are kidding right? this is equivalent to a constitutional amendment.
|I also came across some interesting things regarding the ratifying of this treaty in other countries:
Does the Convention on the Rights of the Child apply in the UK?
YES, the UK Government agreed to make all laws, policy and practice compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when it ratified it on 16 December 1991 (though it registered some reservations).
emphasis mine - the UK government VOLUNTARILY AGREED - was not forced to. VOLUNTARILY AGREED to be bound to the terms of the treaty.
It also registered reservations - and I remember the UK having a great deal of influence over the wording and contents of the UN Convention.
Remember, who makes international treaties? States do. Representatives of the governments who in turn ratify or not the international treaty. Which states have the most power? The richest countries - and the permanent members on the security council. Who is on the security council?
Membership in 2007
The Council is composed of five permanent members — China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States — and ten non-permament members (with year of term's end):
Belgium (2008),Italy (2008),,Qatar (2007), Congo (Republic of the) (2007), Panama (2008) ,Slovakia (2007), Ghana (2007) Peru (2007) , South Africa (2008), Indonesia (2008)
Sure, but no country HAS to ratify a convention. A country at any time can say it won't comply with individual implications of a convention. And many many countries ignore common interpretations of different conventions - note the non-proliferation treaty (which was signed by North Korea AND Iran, btw). Iran is claiming that its actions are in compliance with the NPT. North Korea is flouting it entirely.
|Taking all of this into consideration, it does seem reasonable to believe that the signing of this treaty COULD happen in this country and it COULD mean trouble for many parents.
As i mentioned before, signing the treaty is not an issue. No one can force the US to sign a treaty - trust me, it has been tried before.
IF the US signed the treaty, there is no way any outside country (short of other brute force means of invading or sanctions) could force the US to interpret that treaty in any way that would violate the rights of homeschoolers.
I think the misunderstanding stems frm the fact that the UN and other international bodies are NOT equivalent to our congressional system. Their power to mandate anything is limited to the power given to them by the member states - which can recind that power at any moment. The US is notorious for doing just this. Our government does not take instruction well from the UN, and in fact uses the UN pretty much as a way to justify its own decisions, and ignores the UN when the UN recommends anything that the US feels would be against its interests.
You have NO fear from an international law invalidating the rights of homeschools. You may well have fear of a US law which would accomplish this - but that is a totally different fight.