I mean, what good is a Constitution for anyway. It's just old words for racist white slave-owners, right?
This is my third post on our government's conplete and utter pissing on our Constitution. My first post back in October of 2009 dealt with the complete ignoring of the Constitution by Congress during their artempts, and final passage, of the ObamaCare Governmetn Health Care Act. My second post back on April of 2010 dealt with a US District Court judge saying that the long standing and historical National Day Of Prayer was unconstitutional.
This post, I will deal with the US Supreme Court and their sheer unadulterated shredding of the Constitution. They even manage to shred international law.
The World Net Daily story by Bob Unruh states that th is brings our founding document "one step closer to irrelevance". I couldn't agree more.
To set the story up, this US Supreme Court case deals with children who are violent and a danger to society. The current case deals with a teenager, at the time, having been a serial thief. According to WND:
[The] decision dealt with whether young people can be sentenced to life prison terms if they haven't killed the victims of their crimes. The issue arose in the case of Terrance Graham, implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17. He now is 23 and is in a Florida prison – for life.
Terrance Graham, at age 16 joined another teen in the
armed robbery of a barbecue restaurant in Jacksonville. His
co-defendant hit the manager with a steel pipe.
However, the case of Graham v Florida is a proxy for many other similar cases that were waiting in the wings. Such as the Taylor and Walker v Florida.
WEST PALM BEACH — Jakaris Taylor was 15 and Nathan Walker was 16 when they joined as many as eight other young men who barged into a Dunbar Village apartment two years ago, gang-raped a 35-year-old woman and tortured her 12-year-old son.
It would seem that Florida is unique in its implementation of punishment for juveniles.
If they lived in almost any other state in the nation, they wouldn't be facing life in prison with no chance for parole when they go before a judge for sentencing today.
Few other states send juveniles to prison for life for crimes other than murder. Outside the United States, it's almost unheard of.
Florida, in contrast, leads the nation and therefore the world in the number of juveniles sentenced to life for crimes varying from rape to carjacking to robbery. Nationally, there are 109 inmates who were younger than 18 when they committed crimes other than murder that sent them to prison for life. Of those, 77 are in Florida prisons.
Yet, it would seem Florida is not alone in this either. But now that the SCOTUS has ruled, every state is affected.
What has SCOTUS ruled? First, let's make sure we understand what this case, and cases like this, are about.
These cases are about violent people who are under 18 at the time of their crimes against society. Some are gang members who have already committed shootings, muggings, robberies and other drug-related crimes. Others committ a single violent crime. Such as violent rape and torture. Should the sentence of life in prison be only for those who's victims die during the course of their crime?
Some say no. Some say that because these are in fact children (a fact that is still being debated) and their mental faculties have not fully matured, they don't really know and can't fully grasp the implications of their future and current actions.
Others say that while age at the time of the crime does come in to play during the sentencing phase, the violence and violent history of the person should add as much or more weight to the sentencing.
If there is a 16 or 17 year old teen who is running wild with gangs, committing drug-related crimes and shooting people, gang-rapes, and is involved in home-invasions involving assault and torture, then should the courts be able to sentence that "child" to life in prison?
Well, the Supreme Court just ruled that juveniles can not be sentenced to life in prison primarily due to the UN Convention On The Rights Of The Child (UNCRC).
Funny thing that.....
the United States never ratified or signed on to that Convention. We are not a signatory to that UN Convention. Thus, it does not apply to us.
What's up with that Convention? Why did we not agree to it? The UK agreed to it. How are they fairing?
The U.N. already has ruled the United Kingdom in violation of the convention for allowing parents to opt their own children out of a sex education course and determined both Indonesia and Egypt out of compliance because of the way those nations structured their national budgets.
... a report reviewed by the U.K. government that stated the UNCRC "gives children and young people over 40 substantive rights which include the right to express their views freely, the right to be heard in any legal or administrative matters that affect them and the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas."
...there are reasons why the U.S. never adopted the U.N. convention, citing a recent case in Sweden in which a child was taken away from his home because his parents were homeschooling him, and other issues.
The child, Domenic Johanssen, has been in the custody of social services agents for almost a year now as his parents have fought unsuccessfully for his return home.
"That is a prime example of what can happen when the Convention on the Rights of the Child is used as a sword rather than as a shield,"
The UNCRC basically gives children equal rights as adults. In some cases, more rights. But as shown, it can also be used to push ideologies upon parents and governments.
How does this affect the recent Supreme Court decision? WND reports...
Kennedy's opinion continued: "The court has treated the laws and practices of other nations and international agreements as relevant to the Eighth Amendment not because those norms are binding or controlling but because the judgment of the world's nations that a particular sentencing practice is inconsistent with basic principles of decency demonstrates that the court's rationale has respected reasoning to support it."
"It is bad enough for the Supreme Court to engage in judicial activism," said Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association. "It is far worse when the justices employ international law in support of their far-reaching edicts.
"We have not ratified the U.N. child's rights treaty – its provisions should not be finding their way into Supreme Court decisions," he said.
"the court's rationale has respected reasoning to support it." In other words, that since other nations have agreed to it, and they respect the other's nations reasoning, then their laws must also be reasoned, rational, sound and fully attributable.
Just because the US does not see reason in agreeing to the Convention does not make the law invalid, according to this new Supreme Court ideology. Thus, they feel that they rule on US laws using the laws of other countries and even UN Conventions.
And now, they are using a non-ratified Convention (basically just a verbal agreement) to base their US legal opinions and rulings upon.
It is international common law that if a country does not make a law or sign on to an international law, they are not beholden to those laws. They are not even expected to.
Once again, our government shreds the Constitution and international laws to push UN liberalism, big government and European Socialism upon us.
But Sen Jim Demint has a plan.
The Parental Rights organization is working in support of a plan submitted by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., whose S. Res. 519 is urging President Obama to refrain from sending the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child to the U.S. Senate for a ratification vote.
"S. Res. 519 seeks to put the Senate of the United States on record that American law and only American law should govern our families and our juvenile courts," Farris said. "I hope that every American who believes that we should remain a self-governing nation will call their senators today to urge them to become a co-sponsor of S. Res. 519."
The proposal expresses "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."
The more and more I hear and see of Sen Demint, the more I love. The more and more I see of this goverment, the more I hate what they are becoming.