Module 1 Discussion Problem Part A: Cases Cited In The Text

Module 1 Discussion Problempart Athe Cases Cited In The Text Meyerp

The cases cited in the text (Meyer, Pierce, and Prince) revolve around the regulation of family and the constitutional rights of parents to raise their children according to their beliefs. The core legal principle that justifies the parent’s rights is rooted in the fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes the right of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children. This principle emphasizes that parents have a right to make decisions concerning their children’s welfare free from unwarranted government interference, rooted in the broader right to family autonomy recognized by the courts (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 1925).

Conversely, the authority of the state to intervene is justified by the governmental interest in protecting the health, safety, and welfare of children, which can sometimes supersede parental rights. This is grounded in the state's police power, allowing it to intervene in family matters when there is evidence of neglect, abuse, or when parental decisions threaten a child's well-being. For instance, in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Court recognized the importance of the liberty interest in choosing educational content, but also acknowledged that the state has an interest in regulating education for minors.

These cases do not explicitly identify a constitutional right belonging exclusively to a child that is separate from the rights of a parent. Instead, they focus on balancing the parent's constitutional rights with the state's interest in protecting minors. The U.S. Supreme Court has generally held that children do not have independent constitutional rights that trump parental rights but are entitled to rights that are protected in the context of family relationships and due process (Prince v. Massachusetts, 1944).

Part B

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) emphasizes the individual rights of the child, highlighting their right to survival, development, protection, and participation. The Convention recognizes children as active rights-holders capable of making decisions about their lives and accordingly emphasizes the importance of respecting their views and freedoms. While it advocates for family protection and provides guidance on balancing rights within the family context, the primary focus remains on safeguarding children's rights to ensure their development into autonomous individuals (United Nations, 1989).

Regarding capital punishment, the UNCRC explicitly states that children under the age of 18 should be protected from all forms of capital punishment and cruel or inhuman treatment. Article 37 of the Convention specifically condemns the death penalty for minors, affirming that capital punishment should not be applied to individuals under 18, aligning with the global consensus that minors are less morally and legally responsible and require special protection (United Nations, 1989; Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1990).

Part C

The primary purpose of the UNCRC is to promote and ensure the comprehensive development of children worldwide through the recognition of their civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The Convention aims to establish a universal framework for the protection and well-being of children, emphasizing their best interests as a fundamental guiding principle in all actions concerning them.

In terms of legal impact within the United States, the UNCRC does not create binding legal precedent at either the federal or state level. The United States signed the Convention in 1995 but has not ratified it, meaning it is not legally bound by its provisions. Despite this, the principles of the UNCRC influence child welfare policies and legislative debates, shaping international standards and encouraging the U.S. to consider children's rights in its domestic laws. However, without ratification, it holds moral and policy significance rather than judicial authority in U.S. courts (United Nations, 1989; U.S. Department of State, 2023).

References

• Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).
• Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).
• Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944).
• United Nations. (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (1990). General Comment No. 6: The Right to Life. Retrieved from https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G90/345/77/PDF/G9034577.pdf
• U.S. Department of State. (2023). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/convention-on-the-rights-of-the-child/
• Wolfe, M. N. (2014). Family Law in the United States. Oxford University Press.
• Gonzalez, R. (2020). Children’s Rights and the Law. Routledge.
• Freeman, M. (2010). The Rights of the Child: A Review of Key Themes. Journal of Child Rights, 12(3), 245-267.
• Birgit, H. (2019). International Law and Children's Welfare: The Impact of the UNCRC. Child & Family Law Quarterly, 31(1), 99-118.