Republicans hate the United Nations more than they like helping people in wheelchairs

[bluewaveschool]

As Jon Stewart put it last night. Seriously, can ANYONE please explain to me how 38 people looked Bob freakin Dole in the eye and said 'Telling the world we agree to live up to to the standards we ourselves set is something that CAN NOT happen'. BillC, I'm looking at you.

 

[billc]

What exactly are you referring to. There are so many bad things that the U.N. does, cloaked in "helping the poor and downtrodden," of the world it is hard to know which one you are discussing. I mean with the atocities committed by U.N. troops to the attempts to consolidate power in the hands of the tyrants in the U.N. through the small arms treaty or the law of the sea treaty or the internet silliness they keep pushing, let me know which stupid thing the U.N. is trying to push now and I'll try to respond.

Is this the stupidity from the U.N. that you are concerned with...

http://www.glennbeck.com/2012/12/03/rick-santorum-voices-opposition-to-the-un-convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/

PatriotVoices.com, run by Rick Santorum, explained on their website:

The U.S. Senate has scheduled a vote on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) for Tuesday, December 4.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) would give the U.N. oversight of the healthcare and education choices parents with special needs kids make. It is outrageous that the government could tell you and me what is best for our children, particularly when they’ve never met the child.

If this were to pass, CRPD would become the law of the land under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and would trump state laws, and could be used as precedent by state and federal judges. This treaty would give the government, acting under U.N. instructions, the ability to determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them. It also would give the U.N. discretion over decisions about how we educate our special needs kids, and could potentially eliminate parental rights for the education of children with disabilities

​

Was it this stupidity, putting an international body in control of how your special needs child should be treated, or something else...

In case this is what you are talking about here is some more analysis of why it is a stupid idea...

http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2012/07/24/un_treaty_mischief_on_disabilities/page/full/

Under the CRPD, we would be required to make regular reports to a "committee of experts" to prove we are obeying the treaty. The "experts" would have the authority to review our reports and make "such suggestions and general recommendations on the report as it may consider appropriate."

These demands are often outside the treaty's scope of subject matter. They override national sovereignty in pursuit of social engineering, feminist ideology or merely busybody interference in a country's internal affairs.
CRPD's Article 7 gives the government the power to override every decision of the parent of a disabled child by using the caveat "the best interest of the child." This phrase has already been abused by family courts to substitute judges' decisions for parents' decisions and transferring the use of that phrase to the government or to a U.N. committee is the wrong way to go.
The feminists saw to it that this treaty on disabilities includes language in Article 25 that requires signatory states to "provide persons with disabilities ... free or affordable health care ... including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based health programmes." Wow!
When the U.N. approved the CRPD, the United States made a statement that the phrase "reproductive health" does not include abortion. But that's just whistling in the wind because international law does not recognize the validity of one nation's reservations to a treaty ratified by many other nations.
Furthermore, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is on record as stating that the definition of "reproductive health" includes abortion. In testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on April 22, 2009, she said: "Family planning is an important part of women's health, and reproductive health includes access to abortion."
After ratification, treaties become part of the "supreme law" of the United States on a par with federal statutes. That gives supremacist judges the power to invent their own interpretations, which some are all too eager to do.
It's easy to predict that some pro-abortion supremacist judges will rule that the CRPD, if part of the supreme law of our land, includes abortion. Several Supreme Court justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have urged us to use foreign law in interpreting U.S. domestic law.
Americans may differ about the legality and the scope of abortion rights, but it's unlikely that any of us want those decisions to be made by a U.N. "committee of experts."
Another problem with this treaty on disabilities is its failure to give workable definitions. When the treaty states that "disability is an evolving concept" that means open sesame for litigation against the U.S.
This treaty is a broadside attack on parents' rights to raise their children, and it's a particular threat to homeschooling families because of the known bureaucratic bias against homeschooling and against spanking. It is clear that both the United States and persons with disabilities are much better off relying on U.S. law than on any U.N. treaty.

If this is what you are referring to...yeah, what an outrage that some Senators would try to maintain U.S. sovereignty over our own children by turning down this silly power grab by the U.N.

 

[bluewaveschool]

You lost my attention at "run by Rick Santorum".

 

[Steve]

You lost my attention at "run by Rick Santorum".

BillC essentially asked you to be more specific. You started the thread with something in mind. What is that thing? I can't fault billc for not knowing if I can't tell myself. Help us out here. If you're referring to something Jon Stewart spoke about, at least link to the video so we can get a sense of what you're talking about.

Throwing down the gauntlet, calling out a specific poster and then dismissing his response isn't going to cut the mustard.

 

[cdunn]

As far as I can tell, the major objection to the treaty is that it requires signatory nations to... internally write a law that America already has included both at the federal level and state level under the heading of child neglect.

 

[crushing]

The writers of The Daily Show do a pretty good job of taking extremely complex situations and issues and distill them down to something overly simplistic that the consumers of The Daily Show can relate to. Of course the result of the distilled product may not have much basis in reality, but it certainly seems to help people line up on one of the two sides they allow in their comedic scenarios. Sometimes the reactions from those that both love and hate The Daily Shows' fake news, satire, and sarcasm are more funny than the show itself.

 

[Steve]

The writers of The Daily Show do a pretty good job of taking extremely complex situations and issues and distill them down to something overly simplistic that the consumers of The Daily Show can relate to. Of course the result of the distilled product may not have much basis in reality, but it certainly seems to help people line up on one of the two sides they allow in their comedic scenarios. Sometimes the reactions from those that both love and hate The Daily Shows' fake news, satire, and sarcasm are more funny than the show itself.

True, but the following is also true:

The writers of Fox News do a pretty good job of taking extremely complex situations and issues and distill them down to something overly simplistic that the consumers of Fox News can relate to. Of course the result of the distilled product may not have much basis in reality, but it certainly seems to help people line up on one of the two sides they allow in their scenarios.

Same can be said about EVERY news outlet. Wouldn't you agree? The only difference is that the Daily Show uses comedy to get ratings and is up front about their use of out-of-context quotes to often unfairly frame a political issue. The media, without exception, ALSO uses out-of-context quotes to unfairly frame political issues. The difference is that they are seldom funny and never up front about it.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

You lost my attention at "run by Rick Santorum".

So you call him out, then dont read his response because it's based on a politician you dont like? That hardly seems fair, at least give the response a chance, who knows, it may be an adequate statement even if the poster is an idiot (not saying either bill or rick is, saying that you seem to believe both are)

 

[WC_lun]

Any UN mandate cannot over-rule federal or state law. Sorry Bill C, but that is just nonsense. The UN has no real power to make a country do anything unless a majority of the attending states (countries) come together to initiate sanctions or in the ultra-rare case military intervention. On top of that, the US is one of the countries that have veto power,so if they tried to enforce anyhting, we'd just veto it.

Secondly, what was being talked about is signing onto a resolution that would ask member countries to basically pass the same laws WE ALREADY HAVE, in regards to the treatment of disabled persons. Keep in mind also that a disabled person in the US does have access to certain services, which would fullfill anything passed in the UN and approved by our congress. The negative vote was just a big FU to the president because he supported it..and Bob Dole because he happened to agree. Bill C, the post you link have no real merit and seem more designed to feed the nonsense about the UN taking over our government. If this had passed it would have not effected us at all, but maybe would have encouraged other member nations to treat disabled persons better.

 

[Steve]

Any UN mandate cannot over-rule federal or state law. Sorry Bill C, but that is just nonsense. The UN has no real power to make a country do anything unless a majority of the attending states (countries) come together to initiate sanctions or in the ultra-rare case military intervention. On top of that, the US is one of the countries that have veto power,so if they tried to enforce anyhting, we'd just veto it.

Secondly, what was being talked about is signing onto a resolution that would ask member countries to basically pass the same laws WE ALREADY HAVE, in regards to the treatment of disabled persons. Keep in mind also that a disabled person in the US does have access to certain services, which would fullfill anything passed in the UN and approved by our congress. The negative vote was just a big FU to the president because he supported it..and Bob Dole because he happened to agree. Bill C, the post you link have no real merit and seem more designed to feed the nonsense about the UN taking over our government. If this had passed it would have not effected us at all, but maybe would have encouraged other member nations to treat disabled persons better.

So, for someone (like me) who is struggling to figure out what everyone's talking about (other than partisan posturing), could someone post a link to some background information?

 

[crushing]

Why yes, similar things can be said about real news segments. Thank you.

 

[Steve]

Why yes, similar things can be said about real news segments. Thank you.

The SAME things can be said about real news segments. And you're welcome.

 

[billc]

If it is a treaty, it becomes law here in the states if it is ratified by the Senate. Wether the U.N. can "enforce" it wouldn't matte because...

After ratification, treaties become part of the "supreme law" of the United States on a par with federal statutes. That gives supremacist judges the power to invent their own interpretations, which some are all too eager to do.

It can then be used by judges in their decisions.

Is this or is this not what you originally posted about?

On treaties and U.S. law...

http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/18-treaties-as-law-of-the-land.html

Treaty commitments of the United States are of two kinds. In the language of Chief Justice Marshall in 1829: “A treaty is, in its nature, a contract between two nations, not a legislative act. It does not generally effect, of itself, the object to be accomplished; especially, so far as its operation is intraterritorial; but is carried into execution by the sovereign power of the respective parties to the instrument.”
“In the United States, a different principle is established. Our constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself, without the aid of any legislative provision.

There is also this...Actual testimony before the Senate

http://www.heritage.org/research/te...on-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities

The question remains whether membership in the Convention would advance national interests in the international sphere. Joining the Convention is unlikely to advance U.S. national interests abroad, but instead would obligate the United States to answer to a committee of “disability experts” in violation of principles of U.S. sovereignty. The United States need not become party to the Convention to demonstrate its strong commitment to disability rights to the international community. Nor is there any evidence that U.S. ratification would enhance the ability of the U.S. government or non-governmental organizations to promote disability rights in foreign countries.

If the Senate gives its advice and consent and the Convention is ratified, it would become the “supreme Law of the Land” on par with federal statutes, including statutes relating to disability rights.[7] When the United States becomes party to a human rights treaty it obligates itself to the other treaty parties that it will comply with the terms of the treaty within U.S. territory. Therefore, the United States needs to take great care when deciding whether to ratify such a treaty when its terms—or the interpretation of those terms by a treaty committee—may not conform to existing state and federal law or to prevalent American social, cultural, and economic norms.

These federal laws, unlike the broad provisions of the CRPD, were crafted to address the situation of disabled persons living in the United States, not to address the general opinions of the international community. As a whole, the legislation is a firm foundation that can be modified or expanded as necessary through the legislative or regulatory process.
In addition, U.S. disabilities laws are enforced by a panoply of federal agencies, most notably the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.[14] Other elements of the federal government have responsibilities under the ADA and other federal disability legislation. In addition to federal law, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted a wide range of laws to prevent discrimination against the disabled and provide an array of resources to persons with disabilities.[15]
In short, the U.S. government treats disability discrimination in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner that makes membership in an international covenant purporting to set standards for the treatment of the disabled superfluous at best. To allow an international committee of disability experts to scrutinize the U.S. record every four years would yield little or no benefit in realizing disability rights for Americans. Any public diplomacy or other possible marginal benefits, if any, that could arise from ratifying the Convention should be weighed against the negative consequences of ratification.

Abuses by Treaty Committees.

Human rights treaty committees have been known to make demands of states parties that fall well outside the scope of the subject matter of the treaty and that conflict with the legal, social, economic, and cultural traditions and norms of states parties. This has especially been the case with the United States.
For instance, in February 2008, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reviewed the U.S. record on racial discrimination and issued a report directing the United States to change its policies on a series of political causes completely divorced from the issues of race and racial discrimination.

Non-Self-Execution


U.S. ratification of the Convention would make it “the supreme Law of the Land” under the supremacy clause of the Constitution.[27] Although ratification would constitute a commitment under international law, the text of the Convention gives no indication that its drafters intended its provisions to be automatically enforceable under the domestic law of the states parties.[28]
Nevertheless, to protect against any assertion to the contrary and as recommended in the Transmittal Package, this Committee should submit a declaration that the Convention is not self-executing, meaning that its provisions would not be enforceable in U.S. courts. Private causes of action or other new avenues of litigation would thus require passage of federal legislation specifically implementing the Convention’s terms.[29]

Well, if this silliness is what you are referring to...does the actual testimony of someone who didn't want it ratified explain some of the objections to it? As opposed to comments from constitutional and legal scholar Jon Stewart on the daily show and your title that the republicans simply hate the U.N.?

 

[billc]

Hmmmm...just curious...how many Ron Paul supporters and other libertarian types think this treaty would be a good thing for the U.S.? Do you guys also

[h=2]hate the United Nations more than they like helping people in wheelchairs[/h]

???????

 

[arnisador]

I think I like U.N. conspiracy theories best of all the conspiracy theories.

 

[bluewaveschool]

Sorry, I went to work and have been gone all night. WC made my point pretty much. As far as ignoring a cut/paste from a completely biased, opinion site... yeah. I dislike Fox News, but I'd have readily read a news article from them on the subject.

Also - [video]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-december-5-2012/please-tell-me-this-is-rock-bottom[/video]

 

[billc]

Then I guess reading the actual testimony from the hearings on the treaty that voiced the reasons not to ratify it would be fine reading for you then...

It isn't a conspiracy theory, it is how the constitution set up the effect of treaties on our laws. Read the testimony as to why it is a bad idea and you will see why.

 

[billc]

Still waiting to hear from the Ron Paul supporters on this treaty and wether it should have been ratified by our Senate...libertarians, you too.

 

[bluewaveschool]

I traded in my TKD for some google-fu this morning, and found this -

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitutionsupersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."




From Reid v Covert, decision of the Supreme Court, majority opinion by Justice Huge Black, with Justice William Douglas, Justice William Brennan and Chief Justice Earl Warren agreeing -

The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.
Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:
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; . . .
There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect.[SUP] [n31][/SUP] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions.[SUP] [n32][/SUP] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.



The full decision can be read at - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0354_0001_ZO.html



for the tl;dr crowd - Any treaty that conflicts with US law is in conflict with the US Constitution, and therefore considered illegal to apply to US citizens.

 

[cdunn]

Asking the Congress to use our domestic sovereign authority to make domestic law is an ultimate sovereignty disaster! Yes, if we pass a law, it's a law - and we can enforce it to our own satisfaction, like, oh, everything else we do.

butbloohelmets!