This is a response to a conversation about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which started with a link to this article.
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities does everything the Ten Specific Problems says it does (with one exception: Point 8 says “Article 25 on Education” when it means Article 24).
You say: “Maybe if I write in all caps.. hang on..
NO U.N. TREATY CAN SUPERCEDE U.S. LAWS. EVERY SINGLE THING THAT THE GOP HATES ABOUT THIS IS TWISTED AROUND, AND THEY’RE PREYING UPON PEOPLE THAT DON’T KNOW THAT FACT.”
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution (the “Supremacy Clause” says:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”
So, in a sense, you’re right, it doesn’t supersede US law. As a Treaty it instead BECOMES law, the “supreme law of the land”. So in effect you’re very, very wrong.
The same does not hold true for any other signatory.
The Ten Problems article does get slightly hyperbolic, it points out some of the extent of power that is actually handed over. So you say “Then again.. If someone thinks the U.S. Gov’t is going to make every citizen install a wheelchair ramp on their own home.. I think my words may be falling on deaf ears.” No-one’s saying they will. And I think you realise that. The article is saying that this Treaty would give them the power to say that. And while that power might not be abused this year, or the next, who can say that down the line they won’t find some way to? And why on Earth should we even allow that possibility?
So you say you’ve read the entire text of the Convention. I have no reason to disbelieve you. You have yet to adequately refute even one of the Ten Specific Problems.
Having been beaten around the head with the Convention for the Rights of the Child (which thankfully the US hasn’t signed up for yet) and its “best interests of the child” language, I know how harmful that can be. I may not have experienced it to its fullest extent, but what I have experienced still makes me see red three years later. As someone who spends a lot of time around my children, I know that the people who know what’s in the best interests of my children are me and my wife, and the other adults we live with. With such a treaty, who decides what’s in the “best interests of the child”? That would fall to whoever’s making policies this week. And that’s not limited to those in elected office. That’s suddenly a lot of fingers in the pie. Just that on its own is not in the best interests of my children, even if I had no major disagreements with any of them about anything. I know from experience that the language of the CRC (repeated in the CRPD) interferes with parental rights.
Most people in England are of the status quo, and don’t come under the microscope of those whose profession is the “best interests of the child”. We didn’t stray very far from the status quo, and did. Even by doing what is scientifically provably in the best interests of our child. If Problem 7 were the only problem with the CRPD, I would still be completely against it. You like it, move to England. Me? I moved away from England. Not because of this shit, this shit just made me glad to leave. I’m against it not just for the US, but for every other country.
I read the article that Darin posted that kicked off this thread. It has no content. I mean, yes, it says the 38 people who voted against the Treaty. It uses the word “lie” 4 times. It has 5 quotes it claims are lies, but it does nothing to back up its claims. I have to conclude that the writer of the article doesn’t know what he’s talking about. I mean, the Supremacy Clause proves the Santorum quote and the J Michael Smith quote weren’t lies. I don’t get what about the Lee quote was supposed to be a lie. Is he really there to “pass as many pieces of legislation as possible”? (not particularly a Santorum fan, but grateful he voted against this)
In your post you were very rabid against the GOP. I’m not a particular fan of the GOP. I didn’t think Romney would have made a good president. I didn’t like Junior Bush. In his second term, I heard some of the arguments for him, but I still didn’t particularly like him. Towards the end of his presidency, I found out about Libertarian ideals, and I’ve basically identified as that since then. I don’t want to impose crap on you, I would like you to return the favour. If individuals in society can’t be trusted to look after each other, then individuals in Government, who are subject to various forms of bribery, can’t either.
So you can tell me what you want in as condescending a manner what you want. Still waiting for the slightest shred of an argument, let alone evidence.