Disability treaty rejected (Page 2)

If I'm supposed to be outraged at these Republicans for failing to ratify this treaty, I need someone to explain to me the positives.  So far, I haven't heard anything.

1) They're Republicans

2) They voted against something

3) Dana Milbank said it was because they're paranoid and delusional

There's three reasons to be outraged.

Once again, elections have consequences.

No, I read UNICEF's pro-passage article.  It all sounds great, but if we're already doing it pursuant to the ADA, what is the point of passage?  Just a nice, feel good moment?

How about to advance our ideals and values in the rest of the world?  the whole 'spreading democracy' thing?

How about it?  How does becoming a signatory to this treaty do this? 

So, it sounds like a great idea for countries that have no such thing.  I'll save my outrage for when the politicians actually do something that matters, not something that has no impact on our country or any other country.  But, they are Republicans, so that sort of gets me a little outraged, but doesn't really have anything to do with their vote in this case.

Great.  I hope they all sign up.

I am the parent of a daughter with special need. At last count she has had over 50 surgeries, and 190 admissions to our local hospital which doesn't count the summer we spent at John Hopkins and the couple weeks at Boston Childrens. So I believe I am an expert in being a parent of a child with special needs.

I am firmly in agreement with Senator Santorum's comments and position. Both my wife and I have been watching this vote closely and we were very relieved that the Senate rejected this treaty.  

I'm taking your word over Tony's.....I'm against it.

Are there enforcement mechanisms in the treaty?

Yes. With a few exceptions.

For those of you that feel that treaty should be ratified, I have this question:  If ratified, based upon your understanding of international law, what would be the ramifications if the United States did not, or was alleged to not, live up to the standards espoused in the treaty?

(There is an answer...and in that answer is more than likely why the U.S. typically does not ratify U.N. treaties)

I've read the entire treaty and I agree with those in our Senate that refused to ratify the treaty.  This doesn't mean that they, or myself, are against providing equal protection, equal access, or individual rights to people with disablities.

However, some of the terms in that treaty are so vague as to cause me concern.    While not defined, many of the terms when read by an American, given our tradition of what those legal terms mean, it appears that the substance of the treaty is not vague.  However, again many of the terms and ideas are not specifically defined, and as such making the assumption that because the treaty was based upon the ADA, that the language in the treaty means the same in the US as it does to a Belgian or French International Court JUdge in the Hague is dangerous.

You have to read the treaty for what it actually says, not based upon our US interpretation of the meanings of the phrases, but rather on what is actually said, what is actually defined, and perhaps even more importantly what isn't defined.

In our own Country laws are often left intentially vague, with the idea that our Courts will some time in the future define the exact terms.  This isn't objectionable because we have a Constitutional and Common Law tradition upon which our Courts make these decision.

However, leaving treaty language undefined and vague only to be defined in the future by an international organization that may or may not interpret those terms in conformity with our Constitution and our Common law traditions is dangerous, especially when there is a chance that the treaty could bind us in the future.  (I know the case law is clear and is well settled that a provision in a duly ratified treaty that violates the US Constitution is a nullity, thus, the fear of Constitutional rights be infringed by a treaty is slim to none.  However the danger is in the international reprecutions for violating the terms of a treaty.)

So while I understand the attempt and I comend it, I too feel that the treaty is too vague as to justify ratification.

Is it because of the concept that UN treaties supercede inconsistent state laws?

ETA:  If that is the answer, this seems to refute that, does it not?  BTW, I'm not a lawyer and routinely get caught up in the verbiage.

Got it.  Then it is a matter of principle about all treaties, namely with the UN and NOT just this one.  Thanks.  That clarifies.

I've asked a few times, but still haven't gotten an answer.  What value would U.S. ratification of this treaty add?

What treaties have we forced on other countries (except by force of course)?

ABM Treaty was more Russia's move because they felt like they were surrounded by our bases and nukes, NATO was us, but that was back in the Cold War, Camp David Accords, but those were really between two countries with us paying to keep them happy.