Continuing from above...
For example, the convention gives children autonomy regarding the school they attend, the friends they have and the activities they choose. If there is a disagreement, the parent's decisions could be reviewed by a third party. Consequently, parents could be subject to "identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and follow-up."
Many people are probably asking the question -- if the Senate didn't ratify it, why is the convention still a problem for the United States? Unfortunately, this is not the end of the story because the U.S. court system has been incorporating the treaty steadily through a doctrine called "customary international law." This is where U.S. courts look to foreign courts and other international treaties to derive its interpretation of the U.S Constitution.
In the 2004 case Roper v. Simmons, a majority on the U.S. Supreme Court noted that the execution of juvenile offenders violated several international treaties, including the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and stated that the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty provides confirmation for the court's own conclusion that the death penalty is disproportional punishment for offenders younger than 18.
Additionally, a change in the makeup of the Senate could result in the ratification of the treaty. The consequences of these actions could be devastating for the American family because it would mean that any state law relating to education, the family, adoption and dozens of other issues could be nullified by a judge.
{ snip }
If the treaty is ratified, because of the way the U.S. Constitution is written, the convention would become the supreme law of the land. 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 U.S. Congress and state legislatures could not override the provisions of the treaty.
This scenario should remind us that we need to remain vigilant in defense of our liberty. In the short-term, it means that the appointment of judges who will not look to foreign courts for guidance is one of the ways the scenario above can be avoided.
Some eye opening stuff there for sure.
