Disability treaty rejected (Page 3)

I think we should be a beacon to the rest of the world. We should let our 2nd amendment be a beacon to all the other countries also. Let’s get a UN bill to make gun ownership a legal right to all in other countries too along with the disabilities act. I mean really if we are going to give our view as a county let’s do it all the issues.

Seriously, and quit calling soccer football or futbol or whatever.

Right so we set up a UN bill to allow our guns in other countries along with taking care of people with disabilities. It's a win win.

Standing 8 count to Tony.

To respond to a troll?  Uh-huh.

We have to be the peace keepers of the entire world because they can't do it themselves and beg us too then they complain about it afterward.

Roadhouse

Thank you for the question, because it is a good one. 

Article 7 Section 2 - In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.

That section is the section I am most concerned with and will absolutely affect our ability to advocate for our child. My wife and I, (well pretty much my wife) has spent countless hours/day/weeks/year...basically some part of everyday advocating and fighting for what we believe is best for our child.

Currently and thankfully, the law is on the parents side where we determine the best interests for our daughter. It is difficult enough to fight school departments and state agencies with the law on our side. But we have used this law to ensure that my daughter receives basic special education services and required medical care. This treaty gives the power to and requires the State to determine what is best for our daughter. Knowing and seeing first hand the coldness and lack of humanity government bureaucracy makes their decisions make the possibility of that reality a very scary thought for a parent with a disabled child. 

Not according to the Supreme Court.  Got this from here.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

1) Treaties do not
override the U.S. Constitution.

2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by
a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems
a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of
self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you've read
this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone --
anyone -- claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this
myth.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly
recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert,
October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

I guess that leads me back to......then why sign the treaty?  That's a dead end.  We already hold ourselves to the standard of the treaty and if we enact a law that goes against the treaty we break the treaty in the eyes of the world. 

So unless it were directly affect us, it isn't worth signing?  And the other argument others have made is they do not want the UN to tell US what to do.  So in that manner, why would we EVER ratify a treaty?  Why even bother?

I'm beginning to wonder a) if we've ever signed a non-military treaty with anyone and if not, why start now and b) if this whole thread isn't just post count padder for Crowny2...

ETA

We have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_treaties

2001 Convention on Cybercrime is the latest.  Although it was quite controversial.

ETA: And I don't tally as much as I used to when I was on TAN more. 

The U.S. ratifying the treaty doesn't afford people in other countries any protections.

For the most part, yeah, why would we?  And that's exactly why we almost never do.....unless it directly affects us.

Tony,

If the key is that the ADA would supersede the UN treaty then why sign the treaty? Perhaps you are right, maybe you are not. Perhaps the courts today would agree that US law supersedes treaties. But what about the next court or the next case or the next judge or the next decision? We already have a supreme court justice (Ginsberg) who prefers the South African Constitution as a model. None of us can be assured that some Judge or even the Supreme Court will one day use international law as a precedent to judge a case.  Because you might be right now does not mean you'll be right in the future.

This may sound mean, but what other countries do is not my problem or my daughters problem. I am not going to pretend that what I know is best for my family and my country should be applied to every other family and every other country. I am just trying my best to make sure my daughter can live the most productive life she can and pay my taxes. I honestly don't think sacrificing my daughters quality of life or our parental rights to save the world is really her cross to bear.