GOP declares "War on the Disabled", Santorum to lead the charge

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

First, I would question the need for the treaty.

Second, I would much rather let a US Court make determinations about what constitutes "reasonable accommodation," that I would an international body. 

There is a separate optional codicil that I think the US has not signed onto to put an international body in charge of reviewing compliance.  So all that would be at stake if the treaty were ratified would be our internal laws, which means this really should not be something subjected to a treaty in the first place.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, the main bugaboo in this treaty for the anti-UN crowd is probably the language in Article 4: "The provisions of the present Convention shall extend to all parts of federal states without any limitations or exceptions."  While innocuous enough for the present treaty, the idea that a treaty can bind each of the 50 States despite their not signing up to it runs counter to current practice.  Indeed, given the historical interpretation of the Federal government's treaty power, the language is null and void, but who knows what a future Supreme Court might decide?  The thing is, the language here, regardless of its lack of effect, raises the hackles of those who fear a unitary world government.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

GOP remains absurd and hateful. What else is new?

Absurd, perhaps, but so is the treaty.  Its proponents can't point to a single positive thing it would actually achieve in the US.  They've gone out of their way to claim it's a paper tiger with no claws or teeth in it.  Which is actually the case, so this was all about style and not at all about substance.  So the vote wasn't about the disabled, but about whether the US could be made to feel subservient to the UN.

Not that the adoption of this silly piece of paper would have done that, but it'll hopefully keep us from funding another useless piece of UN bureaucracy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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!

So you like creating more useless UN bureaucracy?  I'll grant that quite a few of those who rose in opposition to this treaty could use some more tinfoil to keep those black helicopters they think are out there from detecting them, but I have yet to hear one thing this treaty would have actually done other than let the countries that sign up to it feel good about themselves.  The UN could accomplish the same thing without the useless bureaucrats by passing a declaration.  Oh wait, they already did back in 1975 when the UN adopted its Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And I'm supposed to believe the Goldwater that is adored these days would have agreed with Dole on this treaty? Ok.

Well he certainly wouldn't have opposed it for the ridiculous reasons that those who voted against it gave.  He might have opposed it for the reason I do, that the only real thing it does is set up another useless UN bureaucracy we'd be expected to pay for.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And I'm supposed to believe the Goldwater that is adored these days would have agreed with Dole on this treaty? Ok.

Well he certainly wouldn't have opposed it for the ridiculous reasons that those who voted against it gave.  He might have opposed it for the reason I do, that the only real thing it does is set up another useless UN bureaucracy we'd be expected to pay for.

Which I'm sure is another reason why Santorum, Lee, etc. oppose it as well.

Then why didn't they make such a sensible reason to oppose the treaty their centerpiece instead of the tinfoil/black helicopter nonsense they spouted?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Will the treaty go ahead among the other countries without the US signing on?

Yes, it already has enough ratifications to be in force among those who have ratified it.

Think about the (kind of) controversy about E15 fuel. What arguments are being used against it for the most part?

That some cars that will work with E10 won't with E15 because the added ethanol will mess up the fuel lines.  The EPA has only approved it for 2001 and later vehicles, which means if it does take off, I'll need to be careful, since I have a 2000 car.