GOP declares "War on the Disabled", Santorum to lead the charge (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 18, 2024, 11:48:35 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  GOP declares "War on the Disabled", Santorum to lead the charge (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: GOP declares "War on the Disabled", Santorum to lead the charge  (Read 7513 times)
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


« on: November 27, 2012, 07:18:34 AM »

The most offensive part of this for the black helicopter crowd has to be Article 4 Section 5: "The provisions of the present Convention shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions."

If that ain't an attack on our federal system of government as it is currently practiced (much to the irritation of foreign governments when our State governments at times ignore treaties ratified by the Federal government) then I don't know what is.

This

I'd also like to point out that I doubt China or Saudi Arabia ratifying these treaties will lead to effective action so the entire exercise is irrelevant.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


« Reply #1 on: November 30, 2012, 08:00:50 AM »

Treaties have the full force of law in the US.  It makes sense to be wary of them when they are all about domestic policy, just as it makes sense to consider carefully the implications of a constitutional amendment that would impact domestic policy.
Treaties serve a useful purpose for relations between nations and respecting human rights in conflict situations. In this case, the countries that really need to respect the rights of people within their borders are just going to sign it and ignore it, as we've seen with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Meanwhile, the US is capable on its own to make laws protecting the disabled, apart from any treaty.

^^^ This

Plus I wouldn't trust the UN to operate a lemonade stand.
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2012, 09:48:34 AM »

Speaking for myself, I don't believe this is a matter of personal hatred or any unified party ideology.  Santorum obviously does not hate his daughter nor other disabled people, and there are Republican Senators that voted in favor of ratification.  I do think that the concerns about the treaty somehow trumping U.S. law or being automatically enforceable in American courts are, given the specifics of the treaty and recent American jurisprudence, completely unwarranted.  But I don't believe the opposition is rooted either in personal animus of any kind, nor in any uniform party ideology.

This is the most reasonable post I've seen in a long time Smiley
Logged
DC Al Fine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,080
Canada


« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2012, 01:41:34 PM »

hahahaha, the American senate fails to ratify a UN treaty on the rights of the disabled? hahahaha, are you guys even serious? I'm literally lost for words.

I especially love Inks and Ernest in this thread. Keep up the good work, guys!

The US didn't ratify the UN Convention on the rights of the child - a proud rejection it shares worldwide only with Somalia.

Because countries like Bangladesh have such stellar records on child labour Roll Eyes
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.019 seconds with 10 queries.