Santorum: UN treaty on disabled will "Crush US sovereignty"

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Yep - apparently agreeing to an international standard for protection of the disabled marks the end of hte US as a sovereign nation, or some such wing-nuttery.... the offending piece:


The most offensive provision is found in Section 7 of the treaty dealing specifically with children with disabilities. That section reads:

“In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

“The best interest of the child” standard is lifted out of a controversial provision contained in the 1989 treaty called the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. That treaty was never ratified in large part because of this provision.

“The best interest of the child” standard may sound like it protects children, but what it does is put the government, acting under U.N. authority, in the position to determine for all children with disabilities what is best for them. That is counter to the current state of the law in this country which puts parents – not the government – in that position of determining what is in their child’s best interest. Under the laws of our country, parents lose that right only if the state, through the judicial process, determines that the parents are unfit to make that decision.


apparently Santorum thinks that any decision made by a parent is automatically in eth best interests of a child and must never be challenged.

He goes on to use this example:


In the case of our 4-year-old daughter, Bella, who has Trisomy 18, a condition that the medical literature says is “incompatible with life,” would her “best interest” be that she be allowed to die? Some would undoubtedly say so.


does "some" equate with the Govt?

What about cases where the parents want the child to die - does Santorum defend their right to make that decision in very simlar circumstances?

If so does he believe that the parents' BELIEFS define what is right for teh child, and not some objective value??


So if the state, and not Karen and I, would have the final word on what is in the best interest of a child like Bella, what chance would a parent have to get appropriate care in the days of increasingly government-funded medical care?


this is confusing - is he saying that it is IK to have one belief if you are rich/well insured, but not if you are poor (since the rich/insured might be able to afford extremely expensive care that he poor/uninsured can not)??

Santorum's position is stupid. Unless you have some objective standard for care and protection you leave children vulnerable to the whims of their parents. Waht parents consider "best" for their children can be horribly variable - some will refuse all medical treatment, others will refuse some medical treatments but not others - eg see here (short powerpoint)

To say that what is "in the best intersts" of a child is defined by teh beliefs of the parents' belief means that one child can have treatment and another not have treatment - and apparently BOTH situations are "in the best interests of the child"???!!

and this guy got to be a serious contender for the Republican nomination for a bit??




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
You are crossing so many lines and stepping on so many Liberties in your "good for the many" attitude it is astounding.

Santorum's beef with the plan is that it removes the parents from the equation based on it's wording. They are not the progressives children...they are not "The state's" children...keep your commie hands off...

I am so glad my children are grown and are not anticipating having kids themselves.

I don't suppose you recall another person back in the 30's and 40's that wanted to condition all the "good" children while simultaneously sterilizing the handicapped or sick. Yeah he was really concerned about the disabled...removing them that is.

The state...the UN...or whoever can get bent...the moment they think they can tell parents how they can take care of their sick and disabled children...or children in general is the day violence and riots will begin.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Never should a parents decision be considered sacrosanct when it comes to their children but at the same time there should be plenty of protection to stop the state just railroading over a parents wishes for no good reason



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jeremiah65
Santorum's beef with the plan is that it removes the parents from the equation based on it's wording. They are not the progressives children...they are not "The state's" children...keep your commie hands off...


the wording does not remove parents from the equation unless they do something weird - but I dont' expect nutjobs to bother with that minor details....


I don't suppose you recall another person back in the 30's and 40's that wanted to condition all the "good" children while simultaneously sterilizing the handicapped or sick. Yeah he was really concerned about the disabled...removing them that is.


godwins law on eth 2nd post - impressive!



The state...the UN...or whoever can get bent...the moment they think they can tell parents how they can take care of their sick and disabled children...or children in general is the day violence and riots will begin.


So you are OK with parents witholding easy and well known medical treatment (for example) thus allowing their children to die?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
Never should a parents decision be considered sacrosanct when it comes to their children but at the same time there should be plenty of protection to stop the state just railroading over a parents wishes for no good reason


Yep

2nd



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Just so you understand my position, I had a very sick child for several years. I took her to specialists all over the place and was finally able to get her into John Hopkins. They diagnosed the illness, treated it and she recovered.

I find it exceptionally hard to believe that "the state" would have invested the time and money that we did. I am just "joe average" I am not a rock star or a politician or a corporate ceo...they will not invest that much time into child # 34,759,286. I'm sure it sounds really great to you until you have your own kids...then...you will see the light.

Just always keep the Hitler yout camps and organizations in mind and ask yourself..."Is the state looking out for my family or the "states" interest?" The answer shouldn't take long to arrive at

ETA...no I am not for parents withholding treatment..I am for the state maintaining it's Constitutional responsibilites and nothing more.
edit on 12/4/2012 by Jeremiah65 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
One of the more frustrating things about all of this is that the UN Treaty is written, pretty much word-for-word, from a US law from 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act.

What Santorum is arguing is completely ungrounded and if he has a problem with it then he probably should've done something about it when he was in the senate for 12 years.

The idea that signing this treaty would 'crush US sovereignty' is a complete and total lie. We're the ones that came up with it!



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Santorum will probably be the next GOP front runner for the next presidential campaign. He falls into the same fringe category that attracts the religious right, birthers and teabagers. I guess he falls in line with the republican criteria for potential presidential candidates.
I hope the GOP has learned their lesson about backing wacko candidates like Santorum.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Euw Op you seem to be missing the real point of this information. Thank you for sharing, will have to look deeper into this as the UN on Basic Human rights has been the downfall of every Nation they have tortured, raped, pillaged and plundered. This is scary indeed regardless of the messenger or their views.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Santorum is an idiot and a man looking for a way to be relevant when events have made it clear, he isn't, IMO. This is cheap and I can't decide entirely if it's willful ignorance (Congressmen worrying about Guam capsizing makes ya wonder) or if he does know better and simply enjoys starting trouble. Either way, I saw more of him than I wanted to in the Primaries. He liked Missouri for some reason. The feeling wasn't shared...as the votes ought to have shown.

There is this.... (as if a treaty signed is a new thing..
)

All Treaties in Effect with the US as of 2011 - State Department

It's over 400 pages on .pdf but thats all of them. All the treaties in effect, on everything. Sorted by nation as well as by topic in the book mark index. 2 treaties already exist that the U.S. is party to on Child issues. One for war and one for porn. Disabilities sounds perfectly reasonable to me.

As a primary point though, treaties cover far more than just the U.S.. How arrogant of him to suggest a roadblock to an international treaty which, in many areas of the world, would do enormous good. I have another post on here with cases and case law all spelled out, but the important point to make is this....Treaties cannot trump the Constitution...which means anything that can be challenged that way (Basically, at some level, any legal case filed comes back to that somehow
) can challenge whatever a treaty establishes. It isn't the Word of God or something...and our system was made to insure that. Everyone keeps forgetting the Courts ARE the third branch of Government. They've spoken on this too....very loudly in the past.

Why should the world be blocked from a treaty which does FAR LESS than U.S. Social Services/Child Protective Services/Department of Family Services, depending on state, does already and has been for years? This is GOOD for some nations.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


when you look into it deeper the UN declaration on human rights has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal behaviour by troops in any given situation, whether they be under UN auspices or not.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
One of the more frustrating things about all of this is that the UN Treaty is written, pretty much word-for-word, from a US law from 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act.

What Santorum is arguing is completely ungrounded and if he has a problem with it then he probably should've done something about it when he was in the senate for 12 years.

The idea that signing this treaty would 'crush US sovereignty' is a complete and total lie. We're the ones that came up with it!


What part of “sovereignty” do you not comprehend?
In this situation, it means that the country it’s self is responsible for making and enforcing the laws that govern it’s self.

The point is that we have the right to make such laws to govern our selves. And we also have the right to repeal them, if we find that they are being abused, or don’t work.

Giving that control of the managing of our laws, and the enforcement, over to someone outside the country is, by definition, handing over our sovereignty to someone else.

If we find out our government is abusing the disabilities act. We can take direct action to overturn, or change that law. If the UN abuses that law, then we are just screwed.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by links234
One of the more frustrating things about all of this is that the UN Treaty is written, pretty much word-for-word, from a US law from 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act.

What Santorum is arguing is completely ungrounded and if he has a problem with it then he probably should've done something about it when he was in the senate for 12 years.

The idea that signing this treaty would 'crush US sovereignty' is a complete and total lie. We're the ones that came up with it!


What part of “sovereignty” do you not comprehend?
In this situation, it means that the country it’s self is responsible for making and enforcing the laws that govern it’s self.

The point is that we have the right to make such laws to govern our selves. And we also have the right to repeal them, if we find that they are being abused, or don’t work.

Giving that control of the managing of our laws, and the enforcement, over to someone outside the country is, by definition, handing over our sovereignty to someone else.

If we find out our government is abusing the disabilities act. We can take direct action to overturn, or change that law. If the UN abuses that law, then we are just screwed.


Agreed. UN treaties are the law of the land, over and above our constitution. So let us take a moment and try to recall who was it exactly that we voted for for UN overseer? I don't recall ever, ever voting for any UN bureaucrat or would-be lawmaker.

The day we start electing people to lawmaker positions at the UN, then they can start making our laws. But we ain't done that yet....

edit on 12/4/2012 by Ex_CT2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


I think you're misunderstanding what this is about. This isn't about the UN telling the US what to do or the US telling the UN what to do. It's about the US agreeing to something it already agreed to 20 years ago. If you think we should stop that then you should fight to repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act.

When you oppose this particular UN treaty, you oppose the ADA as well. It's foolish and unneeded.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
the treaty was never ratified



so why is this even being discussed ?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the treaty was never ratified



so why is this even being discussed ?


I believe the discussion has more to do with the idea of our accepting laws being made by the UN that are beyond the reach of our determinations of Constitutionality.

It doesn't matter if they are ostensibly for our own good or not. We did not elect UN busybodies, and the more we buy into their treaties the more of our sovereignty we give up. Which is, of course, their ultimate plan. Anyone who doesn't believe that should do their homework. You can start with Agenda 21....



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


I think you're misunderstanding what this is about. This isn't about the UN telling the US what to do or the US telling the UN what to do. It's about the US agreeing to something it already agreed to 20 years ago. If you think we should stop that then you should fight to repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act.

When you oppose this particular UN treaty, you oppose the ADA as well. It's foolish and unneeded.


And you don’t seem to comprehend the fact that it is not about the law it’s self. The law it’s self is secondary to the main problem. The problem is giving an outside entity any control over our internal maters. An outside entity that is beyond our full control.

As to my support of the ADA or not, is irrelevant at this point in time. What is relevant is it is still under our control. Not their control. We can not determine how they will interpret or enforce the law in the distant future. So, if they interpret it in a way that will allow them to abuse the law, and use it for evil, then we are screwed. It will be out of our control by then.

How I see the US law has no bearing over the question of supporting the UN law, because, by definition, they are two different laws, controlled and interpreted by two different sets of people. One set of people are accountable to the people in which the law affect. The other set of people are in no way accountable to the people in which the law affects.

I do not support being under the jurisdiction of such laws under the control of the UN. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


You have no idea how the UN works, do you? This treaty was completely about our law. You argue sovereignty but I find it hard to believe that the outright slaughter of a nations people sits well with you, especially when we are capable of preventing such a thing. This was the outcome of WWII.

I, personally, have issues with the concept of national sovereignty in todays world. That's for a different treaty at a different time though. The opposition to this treay was stupid. Completely and utterly stupid.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


You have no idea how the UN works, do you? This treaty was completely about our law. You argue sovereignty but I find it hard to believe that the outright slaughter of a nations people sits well with you, especially when we are capable of preventing such a thing. This was the outcome of WWII.

I, personally, have issues with the concept of national sovereignty in todays world. That's for a different treaty at a different time though. The opposition to this treay was stupid. Completely and utterly stupid.


Um….. What…………
That argument doesn’t make any form of logical sense.

I seem to be running into this a lot on this forum. It is almost as if a computer program with a crude understanding of cause/result relationship cobbled that statement together, and spit it out as a result, because it is completely incoherent. So much for the modern education system.

Some times it feels as if I am tilting at computer generated sock puppets. The problem is the computers are living breathing people that have been programmed.

And in regard to national sovereignty. Your problem with national sovereignty would also indicate you have a problem with the individual sovereignty of a person. For they originate from the same root in logic. They are inherently self evident as a result of natural law. A person has the inalienable right to self determination. Same as a country has that same right. That right does not come from a treaty, and never will. A treaty can recognize that right, but it can’t create what is already there.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Nothing Santorum said was based in fact. F-n wack jobs Republicans at it again.





top topics
 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join