Disabilities Treaty shotdown in Senate...WHAT THE FUCK?

[RobinStarwing]

I saw these two in the last few days and figured to turn this over to your guys to figure out just how much bullshit was spewed between these three segments.

December 7, 2012 "UN Treaty could have an impact"

December 7, 2012 Thornburgh: "Pure Fantasy"

December 8, 2012 KTH: Disabilities Treaty

December 10, 2012 U.N. treaty 'Could have an Impact part 2'

The thing that got me is that the guys they had on to defend opposing this treaty didn't come prepared to cite (in the case of the last one) and "Supreme Court case that applied"...

Someone tell me if I am wrong but there has never been a case before the Supreme Court to decide if the U.N. and what it did could affect our laws at least in my lifetime.

About the only treaty that I know of has affected how the United States acts is the ban on putting Nuclear Weapons in space.

...As far as I am concerned, these idiots and the ones preventing any solution to the 'Fiscal Cliff' should be brought up on and charged with treason if the shit hits the fan.

[Menarker]

Can you sum up the gist of the arguments or so? I'm hard of hearing, so the videos in those links do not help me understand what's going on.

[RobinStarwing]

Originally Posted by Menarker

Can you sum up the gist of the arguments or so? I'm hard of hearing, so the videos in those links do not help me understand what's going on.

The sum up is this...the argument from the opposition is that ratifying this treaty that actually asks other countries to emulate us in regards to the Americans With Disabilities Act (and I paraphrase here) "would give U.N. bureaucrats in Geneva power over U.S. law and allow them to make medical determinations of someones family by simplying saying having glasses is a disability."

38 Republicans (some of whom originally supported this treaty an flipped flopped) voted no and you need a 66 Yes majority to ratify treaties in Congress in front of Bob Dole and this treaty was created and backed in a bi-partisan manner back when George Bush (the younger) had it done up in the United Nations.

[Aerozord]

It makes sense, the UN is simply a forum to discuss matters, it has no real power. The US (or any charter nation for that matter) isn't going to give them oversight for their own internal laws and policies. A nation signs a treaty because it doesn't want OTHER nations doing something, not to stop themselves. Such as the Antarctic treaty which bans nukes in space. They just didn't want other nations to have the capacity to rain nuclear hellfire on them and were willing to give up their ability to do the same to prevent it.

[RobinStarwing]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

It makes sense, the UN is simply a forum to discuss matters, it has no real power. The US (or any charter nation for that matter) isn't going to give them oversight for their own internal laws and policies. A nation signs a treaty because it doesn't want OTHER nations doing something, not to stop themselves. Such as the Antarctic treaty which bans nukes in space. They just didn't want other nations to have the capacity to rain nuclear hellfire on them and were willing to give up their ability to do the same to prevent it.

What exactly makes sense? I would like you to clarify.

[mauve]

*Comes in, opens mouth to speak*

*Thinks better of it, leaves*




In all honesty, though, and please, no one take this the wrong way, but as a disabled person with disabled family members, I'd honestly say I'd have to be expecting something in order to be surprised by this ruling at all. The Americans With Disabilities Act has helped me immensely, although it hasn't always helped the others in my family (a relative of mine was fired from a previous job when her employer learned she had been recently diagnosed with degenerative blindness. That's against the law btw), and while it would be wonderful and a true step forward for mankind if we could apply these same laws across the globe, it is, for now, the same as saying "Let's end wars and world hunger and stop making pollution." It's a worthy end goal, but not likely to happen because it requires not only a great deal of practicality for every country in the world, but it needs EVERYONE to agree on the same thing. And we all know how great the governments of the world are about agreeing with one another, particularly on things that will cost money.

Anyway, the disabled population is one of the least attractive groups for politicians to appeal to. At best, we're used in political campaigns as objects of pity to make a candidate look better. At worst, we're "a financial burden on the system." I'm absolutely unsurprised to hear that this was voted down. I lost most of my hope for political support for those with disabilities and chronic illnesses back during the big healthcare debate. Whatever progress may have been made during the passing of the healthcare laws, I will constantly live with the worry that the few things I care about in those laws (like not being rejected by insurance companies due to prior medical conditions and not losing my ability to pay for my medications should I lose my job) will be repealed someday. If we can't even agree that sick and disabled people deserve access to healthcare in THIS country, I can hardly see how we can agree that people with disabilities deserve the same rights as those who are not disabled across the WORLD.


Me? Bitter? Jaded? Nonsense.

[RobinStarwing]

Originally Posted by Mauve Mage

*Comes in, opens mouth to speak*

*Thinks better of it, leaves*




In all honesty, though, and please, no one take this the wrong way, but as a disabled person with disabled family members, I'd honestly say I'd have to be expecting something in order to be surprised by this ruling at all. The Americans With Disabilities Act has helped me immensely, although it hasn't always helped the others in my family (a relative of mine was fired from a previous job when her employer learned she had been recently diagnosed with degenerative blindness. That's against the law btw), and while it would be wonderful and a true step forward for mankind if we could apply these same laws across the globe, it is, for now, the same as saying "Let's end wars and world hunger and stop making pollution." It's a worthy end goal, but not likely to happen because it requires not only a great deal of practicality for every country in the world, but it needs EVERYONE to agree on the same thing. And we all know how great the governments of the world are about agreeing with one another, particularly on things that will cost money.

Anyway, the disabled population is one of the least attractive groups for politicians to appeal to. At best, we're used in political campaigns as objects of pity to make a candidate look better. At worst, we're "a financial burden on the system." I'm absolutely unsurprised to hear that this was voted down. I lost most of my hope for political support for those with disabilities and chronic illnesses back during the big healthcare debate. Whatever progress may have been made during the passing of the healthcare laws, I will constantly live with the worry that the few things I care about in those laws (like not being rejected by insurance companies due to prior medical conditions and not losing my ability to pay for my medications should I lose my job) will be repealed someday. If we can't even agree that sick and disabled people deserve access to healthcare in THIS country, I can hardly see how we can agree that people with disabilities deserve the same rights as those who are not disabled across the WORLD.


Me? Bitter? Jaded? Nonsense.

The problem is that this had bi-partisan support and was the brain child of Bob Dole and George H. Bush, one-time frontmen for the Republican party no less. One of the people who changed their vote when the Home Schooling League Association was the person who suggested ratifying it in the first place.

Another person was Mark Rubio, who as a child with disabilities. A few of the "No" votes also had children with disabilities.

[Magus]

It was basically that Rick Santorum was afraid the U.N. was going to storm into his house and keep him from home-schooling his children.

Which, I mean, would be totally great, because that guy should not be in charge of anyone's education.

Unfortunately, the treaty even if enacted would not have allowed this by any measure.

[RobinStarwing]

Originally Posted by Magus

It was basically that Rick Santorum was afraid the U.N. was going to storm into his house and keep him from home-schooling his children.

Which, I mean, would be totally great, because that guy should not be in charge of anyone's education.

Unfortunately, the treaty even if enacted would not have allowed this by any measure.

Including his own!

EDIT: So, new twist to this story!

Anderson Cooper was talking to Michael Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association about his opposition to the treaty. I am watching it right now but so far, I'm getting a headache. Can we get our resident law school student in here to make sense of any of this please!!!! Snake! We need you!

December 11th Farris: 'U.N. Treaty 'is a law' Part I and Part II