Could Brussels Homeschool case threaten U.S. homeschoolers?

Most sane people would assume that a legal case in Brussels could have no effect on citizens of the United States. It would be a logical assumption, but it would be wrong.

In a WorldNetDaily piece, Constitution threatened by homeschool case, a worst case scenario is presented whereby our Constitution is overridden by the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Sounds far-fetched doesn't it.

What terrifies U.S. homeschool education experts is the authorities' decision to cite the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as a legal argument.

That 1990s-era document was ratified quickly by 192 nations worldwide, but not the United States or Somalia. In Somalia, there was then no recognized government to do the formal recognition, and in the United States there's been opposition to its power.

Notice that 192 signed the treaty. Can you imagine the pressure on left leaning Supreme Court Justices to conform to "international standards" when more than a few of them look favorably to foreign law when reviewing cases set before them?

The WND piece continues:

"(The treaty) would become the supreme law of the land," Chris Klicka, the senior counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, told WND. In conflicts with the Constitution, the treaty easily could prevail, he said.

"Our worst fears are being realized as we see these other European countries feeling the pressure because they did sign on and enter into this treaty," he said. "Britain, for instance, had a report done by the (U.N.) Committee of 10 and they got chastised because they were allowing corporal punishment."

Although signed under the Clinton Administration, the U.S. Senate never has ratified the treaty, largely because of conservatives' efforts to point out it would create that list of rights which primarily would be enforced against parents.

The Convention is an international treaty that creates specific civil, economic, social, cultural and even economic rights for every child. It is monitored by the U.N. Committee on the Rights of the Child, which conceivably has enforcement powers.

Under the U.N. protocol, a child could have an abortion without telling her parents, while at the same time forcing them to pay for it. A generic description of the treaty calls it "child-centric." But Klicka's HSLDA is more specific.

The U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause requires that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land," the HSLDA said.

That would mean any state law relating to child custody, the family, education, adoption, child pornography and dozens of other issues could be nullified in an instant, the group said.

Under the protocol, children would be vested with freedom of expression, so that "any attempts (by parents) to prevent their children from interacting with material parents deem unacceptable is forbidden."

Reaching to the far end of that logic would produce this result: your 6-year-old wants Playboy magazine, or even to visit a Playboy club, and you pay for it.

Parents who fail would be subjected to "identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up."

Americans who aren't paying attention, and even many who are, can scarcely conceive of some U.N. protocol superseding our very own Constitution, but stranger things have happened. I stress again the leftist leanings of activist judges who look to foreign courts for precedents, seek to legislate in the courtroom (because they can't get their leftist agenda passed any other way). For this very reason is it mandatory to replace retiring Supreme Court Justices with originalists, that is, those who see the Constitution as the framers saw it and not a "living" document subject to change.