Big scary bill in the Senate??

[LittleIzumi]

is this actually something to worry about? I got an all-our-homeschooling-rights-are-being-threatened email about it today.

 

 

 

From HSLDA:

UN Treaty Moves to Senate Floor—Keep Calling! This is truly urgent. You are all that Stands against a UN Takeover...

On Thursday, July 26, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) by a vote of 13–6. All of the Democrats voted for it. Three Republicans—Dick Lugar (IN), John Barrasso (WY), and Johnny Isakson (GA) voted with the internationalists. Lugar’s vote is no surprise, but senators Barrasso and Isakson should have known better.

Chairman John Kerry (MA) said that he hoped for final passage of the treaty “real soon.†The Senate is planning to go out for summer recess on August 3. It is crucial that we delay a full Senate vote on the CRPD until then to give us the entire month of August to show senators just how dangerous the CRPD really is.

If you project the ratio of 13 to 6 out to the full Senate, we will come very close but we will lose. The goal is to make it absolutely unacceptable for any Republican or conservative Democrat to vote for this treaty.

Senators Isakson and Barrasso need to hear from their constituents in record numbers. They need to know that they have crossed a line by giving away American sovereignty to the UN.

Passage by the committee is Step 1. Step 2 is voting on the floor. And that is it. Only the Senate votes.

We need you to keep the phones in D.C. busy until August 3.

Test Case: There is no doubt that the Obama administration is waiting to see how they do on this convention to push through an entire package of UN treaties—chiefly the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, CEDAW (the women’s treaty), and the small arms treaty.

Will America remain a self-governing nation? When senators like Barrasso and Isakson vote for this internationalist agenda we have to wonder.

You can read more about the UN CRPD and the threat it poses by visiting our website at: www.hslda.org .

Call your two senators. Tweet them. Post on their Facebook pages. Write them emails and letters. You can reach them at the Senate switchboard at 202-224-3121, or use HSLDA’s Legislative Toolbox. Your message can be as simple as:

“I urge you to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This treaty surrenders U.S. sovereignty to unelected UN bureaucrats and will threaten parental care of children with disabilities. Our nation already has laws to protect disabled Americans. This treaty is unnecessary and will hurt families. If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it would be the first time ever that the U.S. has ratified a treaty that obligates us to recognize economic, social, and cultural entitlements as rights under domestic law.â€

Six senators stood for U.S. sovereignty and parental rights. They are Senator DeMint (SC), Senator Corker (TN), Senator Rubio (FL), Senator Lee (UT), Senator Risch (ID), Senator Inhofe (OK). Please thank them for their support.

And then please keep calling the other 94 senators. Forward this to your friends and family. American families—and in particular homeschoolers—are the last line of defense against ceding American sovereignty and families over to UN bureaucrats.

For liberty,

Michael P. Farris, J.D., LL.M.

Chairman, HSLDA

Read more about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the threat it poses, and how you can stop it! http://www.hslda.org/LandingPages/crpd/index.html

[Slartibartfast]

“I urge you to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This treaty surrenders U.S. sovereignty to unelected UN bureaucrats and will threaten parental care of children with disabilities. Our nation already has laws to protect disabled Americans. This treaty is unnecessary and will hurt families. If the Senate ratifies this treaty, it would be the first time ever that the U.S. has ratified a treaty that obligates us to recognize economic, social, and cultural entitlements as rights under domestic law.”

 

How does it do that exactly?

 

 

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=150

 

http://www.riglobal.org/resource-center/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/what-is-the-the-crpd/

Edited July 30, 2012 by Sis

[Slartibartfast]

Woops double post

[Calm37]

This is for real. Many people don't understand that our Constitution gives over certain powers when we ratify a treaty. I will admit I don't understand it very well, either! Ugh. But it is real. If you research it you can find out exactly what part of the Constitution is affected by treaties.

[Mrs Mungo]

Any time that they imply that a UN Convention can supercede the constitution (and they do it a lot), that is a flat-out lie.

[Mrs Mungo]

This is for real. Many people don't understand that our Constitution gives over certain powers when we ratify a treaty. I will admit I don't understand it very well, either! Ugh. But it is real. If you research it you can find out exactly what part of the Constitution is affected by treaties.

 

Congress cannot ratify a treaty that is in conflict with the constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

 

For a better analysis of how these things play out, check out this Politifact article on a *different* UN issue. http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2012/may/17/craig-james/craig-james-says-barack-obama-and-hillary-clinton-/

[Juniper]

Any time that they imply that a UN Convention can supercede the constitution (and they do it a lot), that is a flat-out lie.

 

:iagree:

[NatashainDFW]

The treaty does go against current law but not the constitution which is what is disheartening. It can be ratified and violate the many human rights we hold dear. There is no need for these treaties when we already have laws covering these things such as the ADA. Not this specific treaty but another being pushed would take away a state's right to decide whether same sex marriage will be allowed or to set rules for abortion and the like. While these things are not in the constitution if the treaty is accepted as it stands it would now be up to the federal government to enforce such things and not the states. Sit down and read the language of these treaties and decide if the actual treaty is something you can live with or not.

 

ETA: These treaties have been around for at least 4 years now and this fight is still going on. Its no wonder it has not been approved yet because once people read them they realize they are both unnecessary and go against what we hold sacred in this country.

Edited July 30, 2012 by NatashainDFW

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Michael Farris would climb a tree to tell a lie when the truth is on the ground.

[Ellie]

It's a U.N. treaty, not a bill.

 

It gives the government the ability to make choices regarding a disabled child's treatment.

[Calm37]

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

[Juniper]

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Am I misreading something, or isn't this the point some of us are trying to make? :confused:

[Mergath]

*sigh* Would it kill the HSLDA to actually READ these things they work themselves into massive hissy fits over?

 

I've read it. There is nothing in there that would allow the government to interfere in our rights to parent disabled children. Good grief.

 

Also, this part:

 

"4. Nothing in the present Convention shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of persons with disabilities and which may be contained in the law of a State Party or international law in force for that State. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Convention pursuant to law, conventions, regulation or custom on the pretext that the present Convention does not recognize such rights or freedoms or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent."

 

means the UN can't just come in and take all our rights away.

 

I'd recommend actually reading it before everyone gets all worked up. I find it mighty strange that the HSLDA doesn't quote a single sentence on their website, but merely throws out vague predictions that our rights are coming to an end and we need to stand and fight the UN and blah, blah, blah.

[Mrs Mungo]

I find it mighty strange that the HSLDA doesn't quote a single sentence on their website, but merely throws out vague predictions that our rights are coming to an end and we need to stand and fight the UN and blah, blah, blah.

 

Do you? Scaring parents into believing they need to constantly pay legal counsel is their schtick.

Edited July 30, 2012 by Mrs Mungo

[kokotg]

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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 

The "Constitution" at the end there is referring to state constitutions. The US Constitution and federal treaties take precedence over state laws and constitutions.

[LizzyBee]

Any time that they imply that a UN Convention can supercede the constitution (and they do it a lot), that is a flat-out lie.

 

I found an interesting article about this issue. My takeaway is that a treaty supersedes state law and state Constitutions, but at the federal level, a treaty is on a par with enacted laws, not the Constitution.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html

 

Said Justice Chase: ''A treaty cannot be the Supreme law of the land, that is of all the United States, if any act of a State Legislature can stand in its way. If the constitution of a State . . . must give way to a treaty, and fall before it; can it be questioned, whether the less power, an act of the state legislature, must not be prostrate? It is the declared will of the people of the United States that every treaty made, by the authority of the United States shall be superior to the Constitution and laws of any individual State; and their will alone is to decide.'' 276

 

 

Constitutional Limitations on the Treaty Power

 

A question growing out of the discussion above is whether the treaty power is bounded by constitutional limitations. By the supremacy clause, both statutes and treaties ''are declared . . . to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other.'' 328 As statutes may be held void because they contravene the Constitution, it should follow that treaties may be held void, the Constitution being superior to both.

[Kathryn]

*sigh* Would it kill the HSLDA to actually READ these things they work themselves into massive hissy fits over?

 

...

 

I'd recommend actually reading it before everyone gets all worked up. I find it mighty strange that the HSLDA doesn't quote a single sentence on their website, but merely throws out vague predictions that our rights are coming to an end and we need to stand and fight the UN and blah, blah, blah.

 

I somehow got on their mailing list and find this to be true of pretty much every email they send. It all seems rather inflammatory and designed to make me send my money RIGHT NOW! THERE'S NO TIME TO LOSE!

[NatashainDFW]

So if the UN treaty flat out says they can't come in and change any of our current laws what in the world is the point of agreeing to it??

[Mergath]

Do you? Scaring parents into believing they need to constantly pay legal counsel is their schtick.

 

Well, no. You have to imagine me saying "mighty strange" with a huge eyeroll. ;)

Edited July 30, 2012 by Mergath

[NatashainDFW]

I found an interesting article about this issue. My takeaway is that a treaty supersedes state law and state Constitutions, but at the federal level, a treaty is on a par with enacted laws, not the Constitution.

 

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article02/10.html

 

 

And THIS is the issue. It relegates what was state power to the federal government which I and many others don't like.

[Catwoman]

*sigh* Would it kill the HSLDA to actually READ these things they work themselves into massive hissy fits over?

 

:iagree:

 

For quite some time now, it seems like the HSLDA has been all about scare tactics and conspiracy theories. It's unfortunate, because they have also done good things to help homeschooling families.

 

I wanted to join the HSLDA to help support other hsing families who need legal assistance, but they want too much personal information, and I don't agree with their political views, which seem to be taking precedence over their supposed original purpose.

[FairyMom]

*sigh* Would it kill the HSLDA to actually READ these things they work themselves into massive hissy fits over?

 

 

:iagree:

 

Although, I've never trusted them or their agenda.

[Corraleno]

*sigh* Would it kill the HSLDA to actually READ these things they work themselves into massive hissy fits over?

Oh, they DO read them. Then they purposely spin it the way they want, hoping that the recipients of these email "alerts" will just take their word for it and NOT read the real thing.

 

I find it mighty strange that the HSLDA doesn't quote a single sentence on their website, but merely throws out vague predictions that our rights are coming to an end and we need to stand and fight the UN and blah, blah, blah.

Not strange at all — exploiting the naivety of homeschoolers in order to push their own political agenda is standard operating procedure for HSLDA.

 

Jackie

[Mergath]

So if the UN treaty flat out says they can't come in and change any of our current laws what in the world is the point of agreeing to it??

 

From what I read, it seems to be more about passing laws in countries that don't have protection for the disabled that will increase access, stuff like that. And it doesn't say specifically that it can't change any laws. It says it can't supercede laws in such a way that will take people's rights away.

[LizzyBee]

And THIS is the issue. It relegates what was state power to the federal government which I and many others don't like.

 

Oh, I get that and it's not a small thing! But like others here, I've also heard that treaties supersede the US Constitution, so while reading this thread I decided to see if I could find a good source to confirm whether that's true or not. :001_smile:

[Mrs Mungo]

And THIS is the issue. It relegates what was state power to the federal government which I and many others don't like.

 

Where does that leave the Americans With Disabilities Act (signed by Bush Sr) in your opinion?

[NatashainDFW]

From what I read, it seems to be more about passing laws in countries that don't have protection for the disabled that will increase access, stuff like that. And it doesn't say specifically that it can't change any laws. It says it can't supercede laws in such a way that will take peoples rights away.

 

Then it needs to be approved in those countries and not this one. I mean why are we agreeing to a treaty that supposedly will have no effect on us? That makes no sense whatsoever. I prefer smaller government ruling instead of international law becoming the law of the land though so that is where I am coming from.

[Mergath]

Where does that leave the Americans With Disabilities Act (signed by Bush Sr) in your opinion?

 

That's what I was thinking... hasn't the protection of the disabled against discrimination been a federal matter for quite some time now?

[NatashainDFW]

Where does that leave the Americans With Disabilities Act (signed by Bush Sr) in your opinion?

 

I am all for small government and am not always crazy about the federal government stepping in but I would rather our federal government come up with rulings than international law being the precedent. The ADA also does not allow the government to decide what is best for a disabled child and leaves that to parents. From what I read of the treaty (yea the actual document and not the HSLDA website) the government will have a say so in what is best for a disabled person. I don't agree with that at all.

[Mergath]

Then it needs to be approved in those countries and not this one. I mean why are we agreeing to a treaty that supposedly will have no effect on us? That makes no sense whatsoever. I prefer smaller government ruling instead of international law becoming the law of the land though so that is where I am coming from.

 

I don't know, maybe because, given that it isn't going to hurt our rights in any way but could do a lot of good in other countries, we'll look like first class jacka**es if we don't sign it?

[Mergath]

I am all for small government and am not always crazy about the federal government stepping in but I would rather our federal government come up with rulings than international law being the precedent. The ADA also does not allow the government to decide what is best for a disabled child and leaves that to parents. From what I read of the treaty (yea the actual document and not the HSLDA website) the government will have a say so in what is best for a disabled person. I don't agree with that at all.

 

Could you quote the section you take issue with? I didn't see anything like that.

[NatashainDFW]

And yes the ADA was passed a long time ago which is yet again why I don't understand why we are trying to agree to a treaty that is meant to protect the same people already protected by the ADA.

[NatashainDFW]

And how does us signing it actually help other countries? They have to agree to it on their own. Us agreeing to it doesn't make the rules of the treaty suddenly become the law of the land in other countries. I mean unless the UN is expecting the US to send out more aid money that we already don't have to send out. If that is the case it is even more of a reason to not sign it. We need to worry about our own before we begin sending more funds to other countries.

[Juniper]

I don't know, maybe because, given that it isn't going to hurt our rights in any way but could do a lot of good in other countries, we'll look like first class jacka**es if we don't sign it?

This...sort of ;)

We are part of a group, we play together...even if we have perfectly good toys at home. :)

 

I think it is along the lines of standing in solidarity.

[Mrs Mungo]

Then it needs to be approved in those countries and not this one. I mean why are we agreeing to a treaty that supposedly will have no effect on us? That makes no sense whatsoever. I prefer smaller government ruling instead of international law becoming the law of the land though so that is where I am coming from.

 

UN Conventions are sort of like a gentleman's agreement to work on an issue. Again, they CANNOT supercede the constitution, there has already been a SCOTUS ruling on this, which I posted above.

[Mergath]

And how does us signing it actually help other countries? They have to agree to it on their own. Us agreeing to it doesn't make the rules of the treaty suddenly become the law of the land in other countries. I mean unless the UN is expecting the US to send out more aid money that we already don't have to send out. If that is the case it is even more of a reason to not sign it. We need to worry about our own before we begin sending more funds to other countries.

 

I'd imagine it's all political. We can't exactly pressure other countries that may benefit from this to sign it if we haven't done so ourselves. And the more countries that sign, the more pressure there will be on countries with human rights issues to also sign.

[Mrs Mungo]

And how does us signing it actually help other countries? They have to agree to it on their own. Us agreeing to it doesn't make the rules of the treaty suddenly become the law of the land in other countries. I mean unless the UN is expecting the US to send out more aid money that we already don't have to send out. If that is the case it is even more of a reason to not sign it. We need to worry about our own before we begin sending more funds to other countries.

 

The US is a big country with big guns and big pockets. Us signing such things puts pressure on other countries with worse human rights records.

[mlbuchina]

I am not in favor of anything that gives even the impression that we are giving up any of our sovereignty.

[Mrs Mungo]

I am not in favor of anything that gives even the impression that we are giving up any of our sovereignty.

 

There is no way that signing a UN Convention does that.

[NatashainDFW]

In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of

the child shall be a primary consideration.

 

Article 7 Section 2.....who determines the best interests of the child? Since the government is the one that is to make sure the best interests of the child are followed one should assume that the government is the one making this determination. Until this is defined it is to vague to be passed without cause for concern.

[FairyMom]

UN Conventions are sort of like a gentleman's agreement to work on an issue. Again, they CANNOT supercede the constitution, there has already been a SCOTUS ruling on this, which I posted above.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[Slartibartfast]

And yes the ADA was passed a long time ago which is yet again why I don't understand why we are trying to agree to a treaty that is meant to protect the same people already protected by the ADA.

 

The ADA is specific to employment, access to public places and communication. It doesn't protect the same. It does more.

 

Here are links to some organizations discussing the issue.

 

http://www.nad.org/news/2012/7/action-alert-ask-your-senator-ratify-crpd-now

 

http://www.unitedspinal.org/2012/07/27/ratify-the-crpd/

 

http://www.ratifynow.org/ratifynow-faq/

 

http://www.vetsfirst.org/ratify-crpd/

[Mergath]

In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of

the child shall be a primary consideration.

 

Article 7 Section 2.....who determines the best interests of the child? Since the government is the one that is to make sure the best interests of the child are followed one should assume that the government is the one making this determination. Until this is defined it is to vague to be passed without cause for concern.

 

Stating that the best interests of a disabled child will be a primary consideration (not the only one) does not equal the government taking our kids away if we don't do what they want. Also, do you really think that our government doesn't already have laws stating pretty much that exact same thing?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Stating that the best interests of a disabled child will be a primary consideration (not the only one) does not equal the government taking our kids away if we don't do what they want. Also, do you really think that our government doesn't already have laws stating pretty much that exact same thing?

 

Exactly.

[Slartibartfast]

If this is really no big deal then why didn't it just get signed a long time ago? Why does it keep getting shelved and hemmed hawwed over?

 

The Vets First link I posted has a brief history

 

There’s a brief history about the CRPD that vets should know about, too. The process started in the U.S. in 2006 when a delegation appointed by President George W. Bush negotiated its terms with representatives from many other nations. Then in 2009, the U.S. signed the CRPD, and its ratification by the Senate is the last step in the process for our country to become the 118th to support equal rights for all persons with disabilities worldwide.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If this is really no big deal then why didn't it just get signed a long time ago? Why does it keep getting shelved and hemmed hawwed over?

 

Because of politics and groups like HSLDA?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of

the child shall be a primary consideration.

 

Article 7 Section 2.....who determines the best interests of the child? Since the government is the one that is to make sure the best interests of the child are followed one should assume that the government is the one making this determination. Until this is defined it is to vague to be passed without cause for concern.

 

Please explain why the bests interests of the child should not be a consideration.

[NatashainDFW]

Please explain why the bests interests of the child should not be a consideration.

 

They should be but who determines the best interest is my issue. If that was defined I would likely not have an issue with the treaty. There should be rules defining who gets to make that determination. Something to the effect of "as determined by a team of caregivers including personal doctors, therapists and parental authorities" would better define who gets to make these decisions.

[Juniper]

Stating that the best interests of a disabled child will be a primary consideration (not the only one) does not equal the government taking our kids away if we don't do what they want. Also, do you really think that our government doesn't already have laws stating pretty much that exact same thing?

:iagree: and it is important that this a conversation/agreement taking place with some countries that do not have laws that protect disabled children.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

They should be but who determines the best interest is my issue. If that was defined I would likely not have an issue with the treaty. There should be rules defining who gets to make that determination. Something to the effect of "as determined by a team of caregivers including personal doctors, therapists and parental authorities" would better define who gets to make these decisions.

 

Our legal system already makes that determination in each state.