Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Letter: Say no

December 11, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

Recent letters to the editor have been critical of senators voting against the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Neither I, nor the senators who voted against the Convention, would argue against fair treatment of disabled persons.

However, our senators were right to reject this and other UN Conventions. These conventions are not resolutions, but they are treaties. Article VI of our Constitution makes such treaties made part of “the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

We do not need another layer of law and bureaucracy to address the needs of those with disabilities (or women or children in the case of other UN Conventions).

To the extent that current laws are insufficient, our Congress should work to strengthen American law for Americans, leading by example, not by subjecting ourselves to unelected UN bureaucrats and its well-intentioned but problematic Convention (see for example the statement the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, c-fam.org).

Comments

Dan Eyler 1 year, 4 months ago

Thank you for voting no. More UN treaties only validates a dysfunctional organization ran by majority nations that are corrupt, non democratic and certainly not paying their fare share of the UN cost. I cant think of a single benefit the UN provides the United States. Just another feel good organization. The UN is meaningless.

0

Brock Masters 1 year, 4 months ago

If it is as Sycho says intended only to symbolic and not enforced then why is it a treaty and not a resolution?

Are our other treaties only symbolic or are we expected to abide by them? I think when we sign a treaty there is an expectation that we will comply with the terms of it.

So even if no one forces us to comply with this treaty, our own honor and integrity demands that we do and it does go beyond current US law.

0

Bob Forer 1 year, 4 months ago

Basically, the treaty has very little bite and no enforcement provisions. Essentially, it is a symbolic gesture supporting the rights of disabled folks throughout the world. And what is wrong with that? Nothing, nothing at all.

4

donttreadonme 1 year, 4 months ago

"To the editor: ... To the extent that current laws are insufficient, our Congress should work to strengthen American law for Americans, leading by example, not by subjecting ourselves to unelected UN bureaucrats and its well-intentioned but problematic Convention (see for example the statement the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, c-fam.org). "

Folks, we have a whiner!

1

donttreadonme 1 year, 4 months ago

"Alyosha3 hours, 59 minutes ago...

Your overgeneralization of "liberals" (which I assert you could not accurately describe if you tried) reveals your comment to be less reasoned analysis than unthinking emotional partisan reaction — and hence your comment is useless to reasonable serious adults."

Folks, we have a winner!

2

Brock Masters 1 year, 4 months ago

Thanks to Deec for providing a link to the treaty. I generally agree with much in it, but my concern is it requires the states to do a lot of things that go beyond what we do now. For example they require data collection and campaigns to raise awareness.

What is the cost estimate on complying with all the provisions of the treaty? And yes this is relevant unless we would sign it without the intent to comply with it.

Also it provides rights to the disabled especially children. The vagueness doesn't matter if we aren't planning on complying it but then what is the point in signing it? So assuming we intend to comply if we sign it then who interprets all these new provisions?

0

bearded_gnome 1 year, 4 months ago

while ADA has furthered physical and other access for disabled people in the US there's good evidence that it's actually hampering hiring of the same people because of litigation fears, and regulation overload.


just because we have the ADA here, must we force it on other countries? let the democratic processes of their countries develop their own responses.

since May, questioable language was added to this, when one of our Senators did support this, BTW.

people talk about this as if it had no unintended consequences..

0

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 4 months ago

I think this is an excellent letter. Let each country make its own laws and rules and enforce them. If you are disabled and traveling abroad then it is up to you to do some research and find out what the conditions will be, so you know what to expect before you get there.

2

deec 1 year, 4 months ago

The world's nations have already surrendered their sovereign status to the banks and other multinational corporations. Individual national governments are just window dressing.

6

disappointed_regressive 1 year, 4 months ago

Constant attempts by smart, cutting-edge, new-world-order progressives to hand our sovereigntyover to the world upsets not-so-swift regressives like me.

1

Brock Masters 1 year, 4 months ago

Jhawkinsf and others have said it doesn't compel the US or other countries to do anything - it is just a symbolic affirmation of the rights of the disabled.

So if that is true why not pass a resolution and avoid the controversy?

1

Lynn Mockry 1 year, 4 months ago

Mr. Barfield is quoting the Supremacy Clause which merely says that Federal law trumps state and local law. It lacks relevance to the issue.

Lately the Neocons have been attempting to claim that a treaty is a de facto Constitutional Amendment. It's not. Mr. Barfield seems to be making the same silly mistake.

I invite Mr. Barfield to come join the world in affirming the value of all people.

8

beatrice 1 year, 4 months ago

"Neither I, nor the senators who voted against the Convention, would argue against fair treatment of disabled persons."

Who needs to argue against fair treatment of disabled persons when you can just vote against fair treatment of disabled persons?

12

cowboy 1 year, 4 months ago

Get out of your basement once in awhile Mr. Barfield.

You / we take for granted the access that is a part of the US physical structure. Those would not be present without the ADA act. Much of the rest of the world is not like us. My sister this past summer , took a young man with CP to Europe on a trip he earned thru academic prowess. The trip was brutal with little access , little help from tour staff , and seemingly little understanding from the other kids on the tour. It was a nightmare and tour operators actually stated " he should not have come". He simply was wheelchair bound. In the US that is not a big deal. Your ignorant portrayal of this treaty as some challenge to your personal constitutional tower of pettiness is a sad comment on your awareness of anything past the Fox News TV screen.

11

Ken Lassman 1 year, 4 months ago

This is a sad example of ignorance and paranoia overriding saner minds within the Republican party--where will it stop? The treaty would have no power to alter or overrule United States law, and any recommendations that emerge from it would not be binding on state or federal governments or in any state or federal court. To listen to Sen. Santorum and his ilk spread misinformation about what this ratification would do is akin to listening to their lies about the earth being 10,000 year old and the like.

As a result, we have shot down one of the home grown historic highlights in the history of Human Rights for the world to emulate. What a shame.

13

Gandalf 1 year, 4 months ago

You mean Bob Dole is a liberal and has no respect for the constitution? Now there is a shocker!

14

Gandalf 1 year, 4 months ago

In other words, you were afraid this treaty would interfere with GOP plans to cut programs for the poor and disabled?

14

Commenting has been disabled for this item.