• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate rejects United Nations treaty for disabled rights in a 61-38 vote

T

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
34,951
Reaction score
16,311
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
A United Nations treaty to ban discrimination against people with disabilities went down to defeat in the Senate on Tuesday in a 61-38 vote.The treaty, backed by President Obama and former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.), fell five votes short of the two-thirds majority needed for confirmation as dozens of Senate Republicans objected that it would create new abortion rights and impede the ability of people to homeschool disabled children.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) argued the treaty would infringe on U.S. sovereignty, an argument echoed by other opponents.“This unelected bureaucratic body would pass recommendations that would be forced upon the United States if we were a signatory,” he said.
Supporters of the treaty argued that the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities would simply require the rest of the world to meet the standards that Americans already enjoy under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.
Click to expand...

Read more @: Senate rejects United Nations treaty for disabled rights in a 61-38 vote - The Hill's Global Affairs

Wow its a sad day for the republican party when they wont even pass something that will uphold this treaty.... Good going republican party!
 
According to your own article its a non binding resolution. If its non binding what is the point?

Democrats and advocates for those with disabilities argued that recommendations from a panel created by the treaty would be advisory only, not binding, and that the treaty did not create any new legal rights in state or federal courts
Click to expand...

Mike Lee from the article:

“I and many of my constituents who homeschool or send their children to religious schools have justifiable doubt that a foreign body based in Geneva, Switzerland, should be deciding what is best for a child at home in Utah,” Lee said.
Click to expand...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Senate rejects United Nations treaty for disabled rights in a 61-38 vote - The Hill's Global Affairs

Wow its a sad day for the republican party when they wont even pass something that will uphold this treaty.... Good going republican party!
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

The rest of the world are free to set their own standards if they want to. I don't think the U.N. needs to deal with this sort of thing...they should stick with trying to promote peace.
 
Why do we need this? Are differently abled people in need of more rights? If so, why not pass our own laws? Why do we need it to be a UN treaty?

This seems to me like a UN power grab, and my first instinct is "good thing we have a few sensible americans left who rejected it."
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Senate rejects United Nations treaty for disabled rights in a 61-38 vote - The Hill's Global Affairs

Wow its a sad day for the republican party when they wont even pass something that will uphold this treaty.... Good going republican party!
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

I have side with the Republicans on this one. I have a couple of issues with this:


Supporters of the treaty argued that the Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities would simply require the rest of the world to meet the standards that Americans already enjoy under the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act.
Click to expand...

Why would we require the rest of the world to meet the standards we set under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act? I say let them pass their own laws for their disabled.

Kerry countered that the treaty would allow the United States to serve on the committee to advocate for the rights of U.S. veterans and citizens living or traveling abroad.
Click to expand...

If U.S. veterans and citizens are living or traveling abroad, then they should comply with local laws, not U.S. laws. if they don't think the laws in that country are fair towards the disabled, don't go there.
 
This is a shame, and just shows how broken our political process are when these senators have to cater to the crazy black helicopter crowd.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Senate rejects United Nations treaty for disabled rights in a 61-38 vote - The Hill's Global Affairs

Wow its a sad day for the republican party when they wont even pass something that will uphold this treaty.... Good going republican party!
[/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

There's one thing I would like to add, however. Some of the same supporters you had for the ADA in government from both parties also showed up in support for this treaty. This included Dole and McCain.

Prior to the ADA, individuals with disabilities were largely getting political and civil rights from the efforts of politicians. It was during the ADA that the Disability Rights Movement worked in conjunction with politicians to get the ADA passed. The purposefully avoided going to the public with these concerns, out of the awareness that the public largely had misunderstandings and misconceptions of those with disabilities. In much sense, they were correct. The business community kicked up a storm toward the end of the process and the public started to belief that this was going to be lawsuit city and that it had overreached, even sometimes hearing about the parasites known as the disabled. This strategy largely continues to exist and has some benefits and costs. In this case, it was possibly a cost that the public was not made aware by disability rights organizations what the Treaty does and does not do, in order to exert public pressure to support the treaty. But then again, maybe some of the rhetoric would have kicked up a few notches had the public become more aware of it.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Why do we need this? Are differently abled people in need of more rights? If so, why not pass our own laws? Why do we need it to be a UN treaty?

This seems to me like a UN power grab, and my first instinct is "good thing we have a few sensible americans left who rejected it."
Click to expand...

This isn't largely about the United States, it's about the other members of the United Nations. If we wanted to look at the US's own legal and legislative history to this stuff, we can. Prior to PL-94-142, there were states that had high standards for the education of those with disabilities, Michigan among them. That did not stop our efforts to nationalize such standards across all public schools in the country. Thank goodness we did, because it helped a lot.
 
As usual Republican's xenophobia and hatred for the UN triumphs over the right thing to do. Some of the comments coming for the GOP wackos on this are beyond conspiracy theory.... that the UN will force home schoolers to put in ramps for handicapped... that is actually one of the reasons that some GOP voted no...

Fact is that this treaty/agreement or whatever you want to call it, is something that international communities join to show support for a certain cause.. in this case, making life for handicapped peoples better world wide. But nooo, the GOP is against such things it seems, just because it is happening in the UN, which happens to be the only bloody place such international agreements CAN happen.. bloody idiots.

The very fact that those very same GOPers then went on and claimed the US had the best protection of handicapped in the world (they dont but hey), only shows the arrogance and stupidity of the GOP these days.

Jon Stewart has a great bit on this on his last show.. and he really rips the GOP on this.
 
This treaty did not require any US law to change.

It was deisgned to bring the rest of the worldup to the standards of the United states in dealing with the disabled. From an american point of view, it was exporting american values around the world. Over 120 countries have already ratified it.

It enables american disabled to expect standard treatment when travelling for whatever reason. It was endorsed by the US Chamber of Commerce, because it opens more markets to american technology and know how.

The tremendous ignorance shown by the republicans that railed about loss of sovereignty/black helicopters and other stupid stuff not applicable is yet another indication of the paucity of common sense, thoughtful consideration and accurate analysis that they consistently demonstrate.

They ought to be ashamed of themselves, but they are too ignorant to understand why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom