One of my biggest pet peeves is when judges attempt to legislate from the bench. Our system of government is set up with checks and balances for a reason, and some people feel that their “cause” is more important than following the normal course of events as our founding fathers defined them.
With this in mind, it comes as no surprise that some organizations are trying to persuade the Supreme Court to apply the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child as a matter of binding ‘customary international law’, even though the United States has not ratified the CRC.
Amnesty International believes that international law, rather than American law, should be used to make this decision. We have been warning people for some time that this theory could be used to force this treaty upon an unwilling American public. Americans want to retain family-based decision-making and American-made law. The UN Convention Rights of the Child would undermine both of these principles,” constitutional lawyer Michael Farris said.
If the Supreme Court rules that the international laws defined in the CRC are binding on the American people, a vast majority of family laws from virtually every state could be impacted and no longer applicable.
No international law should supersede an American law within the borders of our sovereign nation and our nation’s laws should originate in an American legislative body not from the hammering of a gavel from the bench.
You can read about these cases which could have a long-lasting impact on families across America, at parentalrights.org.