International Decisions to Influence US Constitutional Law – Homeschoolers Alarmed

LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/11/06 | Hilary White

[wagglebee]

PURCELLVILLE, VA, October 11, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) –  International law and court decisions will have increasing influence on US Supreme Court and Constitutional analysis, warns an American lawyer Michael Farris, head of the Virginia-based Homeschool Legal Defense Association.

The US Supreme Court will increasingly use international, not domestic, law sources to “help interpret American law, including the US Constitution,” Farris writes.

He quotes the late Justice Rhenquist, considered a conservative, who said, “It is time that the United States courts begin looking to the decisions of other constitutional courts to aid in their own deliberative process.”

Given the direction towards the extreme left and the revival of anti-Christian statism that is the fashion in legal decisions and legislation in Europe, however, Farris says that those who hold to more traditional concepts of rights, particularly parental and family rights, may have reason to worry.

As an advocate for homeschoolers, Farris particularly points to the recent jailing of a homeschooling mother in Germany and the government’s attempt to force children into state schools against their parents’ wishes.

In September, the online news magazine, Brussels Journal, reported that Katherina Plett, a German Baptist in Paderborn, was arrested in her home and charged under a Hitler-era law originally designed to ensure the indoctrination of children into Nazi ideology.

The law is still on the books and was largely ignored until recently when the German government began cracking down on Christian homeschooling families. Katherina Plett’s husband fled with the children to Austria while another family had their children removed by the court for the crime of homeschooling.

These and similar decisions in other countries could, says Farris, become the standard for interpretations of US law by courts. “No one should miss its bigger meaning. The state has the power to demand attendance at government schools so that children may receive indoctrination in today's theories of pluralism.”

In the case of the German homeschoolers, writes Farris, when parents argued for their rights of religious freedom, the European high court declared that “in view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realized.”

Farris writes that a specific amendment to the US Constitution is needed to protect the rights of parents from state interference in education choices, “in order to stop the internationalists from using European law to erode our liberty to educate our children outside the orb of state efforts to indoctrinate them in pluralism.”

Read related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Germany Uses Nazi Era Law to Imprison Mom for Homeschooling; Family Flees to Austria
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091407.html

[RKBA Democrat]

"Time for an amendment?"

To what end? The First amendment is already quite clear.

[hardworking]

Amen brother. I have had the same thoughts many times. Sad. My grandkids can't even climb on a bike and just peddle around town (some perp might nab them) and they can't go to public school (some perp WILL indoctrinate them on anti-Christ, anti-business, pro-Islam) and they can't just have fun (no baseball bats, no normal kid activities). Very sad turn of events. The future is not pretty, IMHO.

[PGalt]

BTTT!

[freepatriot32]

ping

[JamesP81]

We need an Amendment that states that any ruling of any court that cites foreign law is invalid.

[The Westerner]

Teddy or Franklin?

[Alia]

=mark=

[Alia]

Your post is insightful; and because it is true - those linkages are there. I tried explaining it another way, in past, by using the subject of "gay marriages" and international business community. That even if it did get passed here -- it would impact other nations -- and because of the coda of business.

Liberals have working very hard toward the creation of WWIII.

[F.J. Mitchell]

It is proper that these nine wear mournful black robes. They are the Judge, Jury and executioners of this Constitutional Republic.

[William Terrell]

The who thing is:

"Sect. 2. 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."

I think the first sentence is the authority. The power is listed the Constitution, the laws made under it, then treaties.

It looks to me clear as crystal. We know the Constitution takes precedence because it created the court and gave it specific powers in the first place. Without the Constitution, there would be no court. And there it is, listed first.

Next come the laws passed under Constitutional authority, the same Constitution that created the Court, then, lastly treaties made with foreign powers.

The force of treaties is, at the most, equal to legislation, most probably less than legislation.

This would mean is that Congress could pass legislation that modified the effect of any treaty, and that legislation would have to modify any ruling of the Supreme Court.

[mysonsfuture]

When it gets real bad look for the Alaska Independence Party to be the lead the way in a wave of multiple state authority changes.

[Carry_Okie]

What do you make of this?

It's the twist of the vise set in place from the before the ink was dry on the Constitution. The real bugaboo is in Article VI,

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.

The language lacks any qualification that voids treaties if they entail powers of enforcement that exceed the enumerated powers of the Constitution. If the people want a treaty that changes the scope of Federal power the several states should first adopt an amendment.

The second poison pill was in Article II Section 2, Clause 2,

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

Note, that's not two thirds of the Senate, it's two thirds of Senators present. There are numerous cases on the record of treaties adopted without any recorded vote or even a record of a quorum! Hamilton's argument on the method of adoption of treaties in Federalist 75 that specifically defends this provision is pure smoke and mirrors.

Do you have another link to the 'Constitutional Koan' piece that you wrote too?

Kelo and the 14th Amendment: Exploring a Constitutional Koan

Is this applicable to what you were talking about in it?

Not really. The 14th expanded Federal power to nullify state laws in the name of "equal protection." I don't see the pretext for going after home educators in that, yet. It would be a riot if somebody filed a complaint stating that home schoolers were getting an unfairly superior education and that this somehow violated Constitutional "equal protection" (equal abuse?) provisions.

[proud_yank]

Thank you for the link, I now have it bookmarked on my home computer.

I don't know exactly how I want to word it, but the question I have is how/why are courts able to use 'international law', and use it to form laws and policies within the US? (Is 'set a legal precedent' the phrase I should be using here?)

This sentence in particular caught my eye: The US Supreme Court will increasingly use international, not domestic, law sources to “help interpret American law, including the US Constitution,” Farris writes.

How is this possible, and how can this be stopped? This is something I find quite scary.

It would be a riot if somebody filed a complaint stating that home schoolers were getting an unfairly superior education and that this somehow violated Constitutional "equal protection" (equal abuse?) provisions.

LOL, perhaps you should give it some time!

[Shimmer128]

Time to stand up against these tyrants.
I'm going to homeschool my kids until they pry my cold, dead hands away from the pencil.

[Aquinasfan]

They'll get my kids over my dead body. It's as simple as that.

[wagglebee]

They'll get my kids over my dead body. It's as simple as that.

I'm not sure the left sees that as an obstacle any more.

[verity]

International law and court decisions will have increasing influence on US Supreme Court and Constitutional analysis, The sky is falling warns an American lawyer Michael Farris, head of the Virginia-based Homeschool Legal Defense Association.

[Smokin' Joe]

Too bad nobody in power, especially the judges take the Constitution seriously, they just want to impose their will on you, Constitution by damned, hence the blatantly unconstitutional decisions, such as using international law, by the supreme court.

All the more reason to nominate and relentlessly back a Conservative in all regards for POTUS in 2008. RINOs need not apply.

[Carry_Okie]

I don't know exactly how I want to word it, but the question I have is how/why are courts able to use 'international law', and use it to form laws and policies within the US?

By incorporating law into the decision that the Constitution does not address. In short, it's illegal. They're doing it anyway.

Now, this would have NO EFFECT were the affected adminstrative branch unwilling to enforce that illegal ruling. It's been done before, notably by President Jackson.

(Is 'set a legal precedent' the phrase I should be using here?)

Yup.

How is this possible, and how can this be stopped? This is something I find quite scary.

It's possible because the people allow it, which, if you give it a ponder, is even more scary. Their representatives should impeach any jurist that attempts it.