The Senate Judiciary Committee recently voted 14–5 to send David Ogden’s nomination as Deputy Attorney General to the full U.S. Senate for a confirmation vote.  This confirmation could permanently diminish the parental rights of all American citizens.  It is anticipated that the Senate will hold its vote sometime this week. 

President Obama’s decision to nominate David Ogden to the second highest position in the Justice Department as the Deputy Attorney General is again bringing his leadership into question.  Ogden is most known for his history of representing Playboy and other purveyors of pornography in high-profile legal cases. He also challenged the legality of using filters on library computers to protect children from seeing pornography.  His record prompts many to question whether Ogden would enforce the nation’s pornography laws, as would be part of his job description as deputy attorney general.

Notwithstanding Ogden’s history of sustaining the multimillion dollar pornographic industry, Ogden believes that the legal rules contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) are already binding on the United States, even though this treaty has never been sent to the U.S. Senate for approval.  The United States did not vote in favor of the CRC in the General Assembly and has yet to do so under both the Clinton and Bush Administrations.  The United States chose not to become a party to the CRC and has excellent reasons not to do so.  And yet Ogden maintains that since "every other country in the world" is a party to the CRC, the United States (including the Supreme Court) should follow its terms.  Ogden argued this in his brief in a Supreme Court case, Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), and was successful.  The U.S. Supreme Court now uses the CRC as persuasive authority to make its decision on the issue of juvenile death penalties.

However, the dangers of this international treaty is that it contains the core principle that the government is primarily responsible for the education and upbringing of children, not the parents. Below are “20 Things You Need To Know About The CRC” which was issued by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) .

Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC.

1. It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law.  It is no mere statement of altruism.
2. Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
3. Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.
4. The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.
5. 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.
6. The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
10. 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.

1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
8. Teaching children about Christianity in schools has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

In an article about the CRC, Michael P. Farris, Esq., Chairman and General Counsel of the Home School Legal Defense Association and Chancellor of Patrick Henry College, stated: “It should be remembered that Harvard Law School is requiring all of its first-year students to study international law so that they will learn to think of all law, including American constitutional law, through the lens of international law.”  He goes on to say, “The situation is bad today, but it is easy to see that it is likely to get worse—much worse. The sovereignty of our nation is at stake. We are poised to lose the right of self-government within the next generation. It won’t feel like we are losing self-government—at least not entirely. The internationalists will let us make our own policies except when those policies disagree with their standards.”

Farris in his article, “A Deeper Understanding of the Threat of International Law” in then, November/December 2007 Home School Court Report explains the CDC doctrine:

I made the case for a parental rights amendment to the United States Constitution.

Even though parental rights are recognized as a fundamental right under current Supreme Court doctrine, there are two threats to recognition of this principle.

First, a growing number of Supreme Court justices refuse to recognize that parental rights are a fundamental right.  Justice Antonin Scalia, a noted conservative, holds that parental rights are not judicially enforceable at all until there is a specific parental rights provision in the Constitution.

The second threat is the growing use of international law in American courts. If the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child becomes binding in this country, then parental rights as we know them will be erased.  Moreover, all state laws which recognize the right of homeschooling will be superseded by international law to the extent that international and federal courts believe these laws are in conflict.

Clearly, Ogden is a proven advocate for the harmful position that international law should be used to interpret the Constitution of the United States and be controlling over state laws.

The U.S. Senate needs to understand that the American public does not approve of officials who believe that international law trumps American law written by representatives elected by the American people.

HSLDA urges citizens to call their two U.S. senators to voice their opposition to Ogden’s confirmation.

"If either of your senators are among the five who voted to oppose Mr. Ogden in committee, we encourage you to call their offices and thank them for their principled vote. They are Tom Coburn (Oklahoma), John Cornyn (Texas), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Orrin Hatch (Utah), and Jeff Sessions (Alabama). If your senators are not among these five, please call their offices and urge them to vote against Ogden’s nomination. You may find your senators’ contact info at our online HSLDA Legislative Toolbox," the website says.

Contact: Home School Legal Defense Association, http://www.hslda.org/ , Phone: (540) 338-5600, E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it