2011-04-12 packet

Federal Issues Committee :

The on-line links to the following articles can be found in the "issues archive" of our

Federal Issues Committee website [ http://www.indeedfree.com/fic/issues/archive.html ]

( A Federal-State Issue )

Oppose Ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child!

(Reference: Most of the following has been quoted freely from ParentalRights.org)

The Principle: The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right

The Issue: Neither the United States nor any state should infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

The Federal Issue: No treaty ought be adopted nor ought any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to this right.

On March 10, the Obama administration told the UN Human Rights Council that it supports the UNHRC's recommendations that the United States should "ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC]." Moreover, the administration promised that it "intend[s] to review how we could move toward its ratification."^[1]

In response, Sen. Jim DeMint is garnering co-sponsors for Senate Resolution SR 99, opposing ratification of the CRC. As of April 8, 2011 there are 36 co-sponsors.^[2] Also, a number of state legislatures have taken up resolutions opposing ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, or urging Congress to pass the Parental Rights Amendment to the States for ratification. ^[3]

Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC ^[4] :

It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.

Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.

Children of other nations would not be impacted or helped in any direct way by our ratification.

The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause in Article VI.

The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.

The courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.

Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.

A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.

Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.

Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC ^[4]:

Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.

The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.

A child’s "right to be heard" would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.

According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.

Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.

Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.

Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.

Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.

A murderer aged 17 years and 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.

The Threat : By means of the Supremacy clause in Article VI of the Constitution, the Convention on the Rights of the Child [CRC] could trump State laws. ^[5]

Under the most basic rule of international law, every nation that becomes a party to a treaty is obligated to perform the duties that it assumes under the terms of the treaty. Moreover, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, every treaty is superior to all internal law—including the nation’s constitution …

Our own Constitution reflects a variant of this same theme. Article VI of our Constitution contains this section:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

This section clearly proclaims that treaties are superior to all state laws and state constitutions to the extent that the provisions of state law are in conflict with the rules contained in the treaty.

There is some debate over the issue of whether a treaty would prevail over an inconsistent act of Congress. It would be fair to conclude that treaties and federal statutes would likely be viewed of equal rank and, therefore, whichever enactment was more recent would prevail. New treaties trump old federal laws under this view involving our domestic law. However, under international law, there is no doubt that a treaty trumps a conflicting federal statute.

It is especially important to note the supremacy of a treaty over all forms of state law when the subject is the rights of the child. Virtually all law governing the parent-child relationship is state law, not federal law. Thus, the Constitution itself contains the language to prove that the CRC trumps the vast majority of American law on the subject of children.

Note these four basic principles:

The CRC is a treaty that creates binding legal obligations.

The CRC would be supreme over all state law for all purposes.

There is a difference between domestic and international law on whether the CRC overrides even the U.S. Constitution.

The CRC is a human rights treaty which mandates a socialistic duty of the government to furnish a child’s needs in economic, social, and cultural areas.

Actions we can take to oppose ratification of the CRC:
At the Federal Level:

Senate Resolution SR 99 opposes ratification of the CRC ^[6] :

Expressing 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, and that, because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child undermines traditional principles of law in the United States regarding parents and children, the President should not transmit the Convention to the Senate for its advice and consent.

As of April 8, 2011 there are 36 co-sponsors.^[7]

Oppose the CRC! Contact your Senators. Ask them to support SR 99:

Sen. Robert Casey, Jr. : 202-224-6324

Sen. Pat Toomey : 202-224-4254
At the State Level:

The Parental Rights Amendment is a proposed constitutional amendment to protect parental rights^[8]:

SECTION 1

The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

SECTION 2

Neither the United States nor any state shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SECTION 3

No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

The Parental Rights Amendment has been incorporated verbatim, as Sections One, Two, and Three in Pennsylvania's HR 97 ^[9]:

Memorializing the Congress of the United States to pass the Parental Rights Amendment and submit it to the states for ratification. WHEREAS, The right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United States; … RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania affirm the Parental Rights Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; …
Support the Parental Rights Amendment by signing the Petiton sponsored at ParentalRights.org .

http://action.freedomworks.org/email/view/1150/

Americans to Congress: Be Bold on the Budget [received April 8 and appropriately adapted by pwc]

Dear [ IAP member ],

Instead of real "change," the last few years have seen Democrats introducing more of the same -- bloated budgets, massive deficits, and mounting debt.

Then, in November, Americans demanded a bold new course. They demanded decisive action to rein in government spending in a meaningful way.

We are pleased to see Republicans in Congress taking this challenge seriously. We applaud Rep. Paul Ryan for being the first adult at the negotiating table with his innovative proposal that makes serious cuts and reforms to the Federal budget.

Ryan's budget is a solid foundation for improving America's future, and worthy of support. But we at FreedomWorks also believe more can and should be done.

Alternative proposals may take these additional steps. The Republican Study Committee cuts spending sooner and deeper, and proposals expected from Senators Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Pat Toomey [ my emphasis - pwc ] will offer additional ideas on harmful agencies to eliminate and programs to reform.

While all of these options are indisputably better than President Obama's reckless proposals, we urge Congress to chart a bold course and adopt a budget which will:

Balance within ten years

Eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional departments

Reduce Federal government spending to AT MOST 18% of GDP

Include Secretary Gate's proposed $145 billion in Defense cuts

Cut non-defense government spending much faster and deeper

Democrats are sure to hoot and holler that our proposed cuts are too "extreme." Indeed, the President has already issued a veto threat on a House proposal that would trim a mere $12 billion out of an unprecedented $1.5 trillion dollar deficit in the current fiscal year. But a recent poll commissioned by FreedomWorks and executed by Frank Luntz shows that the American people think they're just right.

No, not just Tea Partiers. Not even just Republicans. ALL AMERICANS.

Our poll shows broad-based, majority support for the provisions above. Specifically:

78% of likely swing-state voters say there's NO EXCUSE to not balance the budget within 10 years

64% of likely swing-state voters agree we should eliminate unnecessary departments like HUD

78% of likely swing-state voters demand the cutting of $145 billion in Defense Department waste, fraud, and abuse

We implore Congress and the White House to take spending cuts as seriously as the American people who bear the burden of Washington spending.

The American people demand bold action. Republicans in Congress are offering a wealth of bold ideas to reign in government spending and stop the red ink. President Obama and Senate Leader Harry Reid are literally sitting on their hands, offering the American people nothing but the status quo. So be it. Republicans must lead. They have taken the first step -- a significant and laudable step -- in the right direction. Now, FreedomWorks urges them to deliver in the way that the voters demand.

Tell them that -- while Paul Ryan's budget is a step in the right direction -- the American people want them to do more. Urge them to support a budget which will:

Balance within ten years

Eliminate unnecessary and unconstitutional departments

Reduce Federal government spending to AT MOST 18% of GDP

Include Secretary Gate's proposed $145 billion in Defense cuts

Cut non-defense government spending much faster and deeper

We can be bold. Too much burdensome government. Too much wasteful spending. Too much red ink. These are the threats to our economic recovery. Independent, policy-minded voters are looking for leadership. There is a political price to be paid for timidity in the face of our monumental fiscal challenges. But every crisis is an opportunity for bold leadership.

Now, Republicans must seize it.

Sincerely,

Dick Armey - Chairman, FreedomWorks Matt Kibbe - President and CEO, FreedomWorks

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12103
Total Revenues and Outlays ( % GNP ) and CBO's estimate of Obama's Budget

S.163 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.163:
HR.421 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.421:

S.163 - Full Faith and Credit Act : To require that the Government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached. ( Sponsor: Sen. Pat Toomey. Read a second time and placed on the calendar Jan 25, 2011 22 co-sponsors as of April 10, 2011)

http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/letter-to-senate-cosponsor-sen-toomeys-full-faith Letter to Senate: Cosponsor Sen. Toomey's Full Faith and Credit Act
( from Matt Kibbe, President and CEO of FreedomWorks - Feb 02, 2011 )

Dear Senator,

On behalf of over a million FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to cosponsor Sen. Toomey’s (R-PA) S.163 Full Faith and Credit Act. In the event that the debt ceiling is reached, the bill would require the United States Treasury to pay principle and interest on debt held by the public first. By prioritizing payments on the debt, this will ensure that the United States does not default on its debt and it will help rein in government’s out-of-control spending.

It is unacceptable that the United States could default on its debt. It is the obligation of the U.S. to honor our debt by repaying those who lend to us on time and in full. Due to Congress’ unprecedented spending binge, our national debt has skyrocketed to over $14 trillion. With Congress debating on raising the debt limit, the full faith and credit of the United States should not hang in the balance.

Failure to raise the debt ceiling would not necessarily cause the U.S. to default on its debt. Sen. Toomey’s bill is the Senate companion to an identical measure introduced in the House by Rep. McClintock (R-CA) in the House. As Sen. Toomey writes in the Wall Street Journal, the federal government still has by far enough money to fully service our debt even if the debt ceiling is not raised. He notes that the government has roughly 10 times more income needed to honor our debt obligations. The bill would protect millions of Americans, pension funds and local governments who have invested in U.S. treasuries. The federal government should protect their credit by pledging to pay off their debts first.

I urge you to cosponsor Sen. Toomey’s Full Faith and Credit Act. It makes it clear that the debt ceiling and defaulting on our debt need not be related. If the debt limit is reached, we must prioritize payments on the debt held

by the public to prevent a default on our debt. Please cosponsor the Full Faith and Credit Act today.

Sincerely, Matt Kibbe

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576089963912388314.html

How to Freeze the Debt Ceiling Without Risking Default
Next year, the government will have 10 times more income than it needs to honor its interest obligations.

By Pat Toomey January 19, 2011

As members of Congress debate whether to raise the U.S. debt ceiling—the limit on our government's debt—we should all agree on at least one thing: Under no circumstances is it acceptable for the U.S. to default on its debt. Not only are we morally obligated to honor our debts, but we benefit greatly from the nearly universal conviction that those who lend to us will always be repaid, on time and in full. We should never undermine that conviction.

Fortunately, even if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, a default on our debt need not follow when our borrowings reach their limit in the next few months. I intend to introduce legislation to make sure of this.

For months, some political leaders and commentators have argued that failure to raise the debt ceiling would necessarily cause the U.S. to default on its debt. President Obama's Council of Economic Advisors chairman, Austan Goolsbee, recently warned, "If we get to the point where you've damaged the full faith and credit of the United States, that would be the first default in history caused purely by insanity. I don't see why anybody's talking about playing chicken with the debt ceiling."

In fact, if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will still have far more than enough money to fully service our debt. Next year, for instance, about 6.5% of all projected federal government expenditures will go to interest on our debt, and tax revenue is projected to cover about 67% of all government expenditures. With roughly 10 times more income than needed to honor our debt obligations, why would we ever default?

To make absolutely sure, I intend to introduce legislation that would require the Treasury to make interest payments on our debt its first priority in the event that the debt ceiling is not raised. This would not only ensure the continued confidence of investors at home and abroad, but would enable us to have an honest debate about the consequences of our eventual decision about the debt ceiling.

If we do not raise it, the government's tax revenue will enable us to fund roughly two-thirds of projected expenditures, including interest payments. Without the ability to borrow the other third, spending cuts would be sudden and severe: Projects would be postponed, some vendor payments would be delayed, certain programs would be suspended, and many government employees might be furloughed. Default would easily be avoided, but these cuts would certainly be disruptive. That's why I hope we can avoid this scenario.

But it would be even worse simply to raise the debt ceiling without regaining control of federal spending. The recent surge in spending, both in absolute dollars and as a percentage of our GDP, has driven us to record deficits and an explosion of debt. The growth in discretionary spending has been the most dramatic, but in the future mandatory entitlement spending will be the deficit driver. Congress must address both in order to put the government back on a sustainable fiscal path.

The vote on whether to raise the debt ceiling—and, if so, by how much—is our best opportunity to insist that any increase in our nation's debt be coupled with concrete steps toward fiscal sanity. Congress should make increasing our debt contingent on immediate cuts in spending and effective reforms of the spending process that helped get us into this mess.

For too many years, Congress has ignored or exacerbated the looming fiscal crisis created by overspending. Last fall's elections were largely a call to finally deal with this imminent threat, and the vote on the debt ceiling is Congress's opportunity to begin making real progress. We can do so without jeopardizing the full faith and credit of our country—and we should.

Mr. Toomey, a Republican, is a U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.