I have now read the entirety of the United Nations Convention On The Rights Of People With Disabilities. Though precious little jumps out at one as offensive on its face, the people of the United States, who both understand the nature and genius of our Constitution, should oppose the treaty vigorously. The genius of our Constitution is that it limits specifically the government of the United States. It is not an exaustive treatment of the aspirations of the American people as a part of the human family; it entrusts those aspirations to the people themselves.
Without prejudice to the citizens of other nations, who have the right to define their relation to their governments however they wish, this is rare. International treaties, as per the US Constitution itself, "trump" that document itself. We can hope, therefore, that our leaders would only enter in to such agreements in the gravest of circumstances, where the common good of all humanity was in view, and the basic liberties of individuals were unaffected by the United States's entry into such a pact. There is neither a compelling interest to override, nor a protection for the individual inalienable rights, within the document. And what exactly does this treaty accomplish? There is no enforcement mechanism. Nor would you want one, if there were.
I fail to see how the US ratifying the treaty will inspire others to improve their treatment of the disabled, and symbolism seems to be the best rationale for the treaty. Americans don't trade freedom--backed up by judicial review--for symbolism. If it has no effect on the laws of the US with respect to these questions, why ratify it? Even if the UN has no ability to enforce its own mandates, why would any sensible person empower a government official to take any action not subject to judicial review? This even applies to US government officials. If you can't picture an infringement upon your basic rights under the pretext of fulfilling a treaty obligation, you have more faith than I do.
And frankly, because "innocuous platitudes" would be the most generous way to describe the treaty, that just isn't strong enough to justify this ceding of power. Art. 49 states that the treaty must be accepted without reservation. If that weren't bad enough, do we even know who has the authority to withdraw the US from a ratified treaty? Suppose the president needed a 2/3 supermajority to do that?
Read it yourself. If it doesn't scare you, it should. I can't believe the Left didn't think it was a big deal, and why so many feel it's OK to mock those who raise concerns. You can make jokes about black helicopters if you like, but only the foolish entrust their rights to others for transient and debatable objectives. Thank you, Rick Santorum.
Without prejudice to the citizens of other nations, who have the right to define their relation to their governments however they wish, this is rare. International treaties, as per the US Constitution itself, "trump" that document itself. We can hope, therefore, that our leaders would only enter in to such agreements in the gravest of circumstances, where the common good of all humanity was in view, and the basic liberties of individuals were unaffected by the United States's entry into such a pact. There is neither a compelling interest to override, nor a protection for the individual inalienable rights, within the document. And what exactly does this treaty accomplish? There is no enforcement mechanism. Nor would you want one, if there were.
I fail to see how the US ratifying the treaty will inspire others to improve their treatment of the disabled, and symbolism seems to be the best rationale for the treaty. Americans don't trade freedom--backed up by judicial review--for symbolism. If it has no effect on the laws of the US with respect to these questions, why ratify it? Even if the UN has no ability to enforce its own mandates, why would any sensible person empower a government official to take any action not subject to judicial review? This even applies to US government officials. If you can't picture an infringement upon your basic rights under the pretext of fulfilling a treaty obligation, you have more faith than I do.
And frankly, because "innocuous platitudes" would be the most generous way to describe the treaty, that just isn't strong enough to justify this ceding of power. Art. 49 states that the treaty must be accepted without reservation. If that weren't bad enough, do we even know who has the authority to withdraw the US from a ratified treaty? Suppose the president needed a 2/3 supermajority to do that?
Read it yourself. If it doesn't scare you, it should. I can't believe the Left didn't think it was a big deal, and why so many feel it's OK to mock those who raise concerns. You can make jokes about black helicopters if you like, but only the foolish entrust their rights to others for transient and debatable objectives. Thank you, Rick Santorum.
Comments