Question.

[PredFan]

So the US Senate rejected a UN power grab.

My question is that if the UN really just wants to help the disabled, then what is stopping them from doing so even without the US Senate's agreement?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

So the US House rejected a UN power grab.

My question is that if the UN really just wants to help the disabled, then what is stopping them from doing so even without the US House's agreement?

Perhaps they need more funding.

 

[DiamondDave]

We already have laws to help the disabled, protect the disabled, etc... The ONLY thing this 'treaty' with the UN accomplishes is handing power to them that they currently do not have....

 

[PredFan]

We already have laws to help the disabled, protect the disabled, etc... The ONLY thing this 'treaty' with the UN accomplishes is handing power to them that they currently do not have....

If what the lefties are saying is to be believed, they aren't talking about what's going on in this country, but about implementing better treatment laws in other countries. Maybe even based on US laws.

So what exactly is stopping them? That's what I want to know.

 

[OKTexas]

The Senate votes on treaties, not the House. It all has to do with creeping world laws, progressive steps, it is setting precedence. It always starts with the simple shit.

 

[PredFan]

The Senate votes on treaties, not the House. It all has to do with creeping world laws, progressive steps, it is setting precedence. It always starts with the simple shit.

I'm sorry, didn't I read it was the House?

 

[AmyNation]

The treaty would not have effected anything. It wouldn't have given the UN any powers or changed any laws we don't already have.

 

[PredFan]

Ok, so it WAS the Senate! So how is it the GOP's fault that the treaty was rejected when the Senate Democrats outnumber the Senate Republicans?

 

[OKTexas]

The treaty would not have effected anything. It wouldn't have given the UN any powers or changed any laws we don't already have.

Still haven't bothered to read the treaty have you?

 

[AmyNation]

It needed 67 votes, it only got 62

 

[PredFan]

Ok, so someone please tell me then, what is stopping the UN from implementing these policies on the disabled even without the approval of the US Senate?

 

[AmyNation]

The treaty would not have effected anything. It wouldn't have given the UN any powers or changed any laws we don't already have.

Still haven't bothered to read the treaty have you?

The treaty says the exact same thing the Americans with Disabilites Act says. Personally, I dont care whether the treaty was passed or not, because it wouldn't have changed anything here, just put more pressure on other countries to come up to American standards.

 

[skipper]

Ok, so it WAS the Senate! So how is it the GOP's fault that the treaty was rejected when the Senate Democrats outnumber the Senate Republicans?

2/3rds majority maybe? You keep adding levels of wrong.

 

[AmyNation]

The treaty would not have effected anything. It wouldn't have given the UN any powers or changed any laws we don't already have.

Still haven't bothered to read the treaty have you?

The treaty says the exact same thing the Americans with Disabilites Act says. Personally, I dont care whether the treaty was passed or not, because it wouldn't have changed anything here, just put more pressure on other countries to come up to American standards.

And of course, made the US part of the conversation when the committee makes recommendations.

 

[PredFan]

I edited to OP to read correctly. Anyone care to attempt to answer the question?

 

[OKTexas]

Ok, so someone please tell me then, what is stopping the UN from implementing these policies on the disabled even without the approval of the US Senate?

There is nothing for the countries that have signed and ratified the treaty from implementing it, then they will have to answer to the UN if they don't do the required studies and reports and changes to their immigration and other laws required to conform. When they see what it will wind up costing I figure many will exercise the ability to withdraw, of course it takes a year to do that.

 

[AmyNation]

Your question makes no sense.

 

[PredFan]

Your question makes no sense.

It's simple.

The US Senate has rejected the treaty, but what is stopping the UN and the countries that did sign it from just implementing their requirements on those countries who don't conform? Why do they need our agreement?

 

[WillowTree]

The treaty would not have effected anything. It wouldn't have given the UN any powers or changed any laws we don't already have.

So why bother?

 

[AmyNation]

Your question makes no sense.

It's simple.

The US Senate has rejected the treaty, but what is stopping the UN and the countries that did sign it from just implementing their requirements on those countries who don't conform? Why do they need our agreement?

Other countries have signed, the treaty will go on without us. However where the US goes, the world follows. If we had signed it, it would have added more weight to other countries to follow suit.