Getty Images
Bob Dole couldn't persuade Senate Republicans.
Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) made a rare Senate appearance this morning, sitting in a wheelchair just off the floor so that members would have to see him as they entered the chamber. Why? Because they were poised to vote on ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, and Dole hoped to send a message.
It didn't work. The Senate killed the treaty this afternoon, with a final vote of 61 to 38, which seems like a lopsided majority, but which fell short of the two-thirds necessary for ratification. Eight Republicans broke ranks and joined Democrats in support of the treaty, but the clear majority of the Senate GOP voted to block it.
The U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, for those who've forgotten, is a human rights treaty negotiated by the George H.W. Bush administration, which has been ratified by 126 nations, including China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
But most Senate Republicans saw it as a threat to American "sovereignty," even though the treaty wouldn't have required the United States to change its laws. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the treaty with bipartisan support in July, Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) explained the proposal simply "raises the [international] standard to our level without requiring us to go further."
In other words, we wouldn't actually have to do anything except say we like the treaty -- and then wait for other signatories around the world to catch up to the United States' Americans with Disabilities Act.
The treaty was endorsed by Dole, John McCain, and Dick Lugar, among other prominent Republican figures, but it didn't matter. The GOP's right-wing base, led in part by Rick Santorum, raised hysterical fears about the treaty, and most Senate Republicans took their cues from the party's activists, not the party's elder statesmen.
Update: Here's the roll call on the vote. All 38 opponents were Republicans.
Leave a Comment:
Like so many people, many here take things out of context. From the treaty, the full sentence regarding registration:
"2. Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by their parents."
US Citizen42
The problem here is, there is a right wing propaganda machine, and these idiots are told 24 / 7 layer after layer of BS, lies, misstatements, edited videos, carped statements, and they believe this cr*p. I said that to say this, these propaganda outlets have been harping on how the UN is trying to take over, how anything to do with the UN is bad, and much more. Don't believe me, then turn on FOX for a while. There is no way to convince the FOX mush heads that anything to do with the UN is good, ever. They will come back with the propaganda that has been fed to them, and ignore anything that disagrees with what I call faux nonfacts.
So shameful and embarrassing, that even the Republicans are embarrassed by this. You can't even find this story on Fox News. Search for "senate treaty disabilities" and nothing. Search every other news outlet and it's the first result. Amazing!
Hey your party the Democrats voted against it to 22 of them did do the math
Apparently, reading comprehension isn't one of your strong points.
Every vote against the Treaty was cast by a Republican.
Trolls can't even spam a thread properly!
In specific reference to a comment by politigus-- I followed your link, and read the whole treaty. The reference you quote is there, but in context means something quite different than what you contend. The "registration" is under the laws of the country in which the child is born, and the rest of that sentence goes on to say that the child shall be guareented a right to a nationality (that is, a disability does not preclude being a citizen of the state in which one is born) and that the child has a right to know his/her parents (that is, the state does not have the right to seize a disabled child and keep him/her sepearted from his/her parents).
There is no suggestion that there will be any sort of UN commision to which anyone will have to submit, and in fact, the treaty asserts that all individuals have a right to life, and that children, insofar as maturity and development allows them, should have a say in all matters impacting them in the formulation of poliices, et al. Perhaps you should rise to your own challenge and READ the treaty instead of merely quoting a phrase (out of context) that someone has told you will be BAD.
As to why it matters whether we are parties to the treaty or not, since it will not affect U.S. law (as the standards of the treaty are ALREADY the basis of U.S. law)-- joining the treaty signals to the rest of the world that we take these issues seriously, and that we regard the rights of the disabled to be not simply American rights, but HUMAN rights throughout the world. Rejecting it sends the message that we regard the rights of the disabled as subject to national interests rather than something that is inherent in the very fact of being human, without regard to nation. This is not the behavior of a leader of nations, but the action of a 3rd rate power so insecure that any international cooperation is threatening. Is that really what Republicans think, and intend to say in this vote? Is this what YOU mean?
"As to why it matters whether we are parties to the treaty or not, since it will not affect U.S. law (as the standards of the treaty are ALREADY the basis of U.S. law)-- joining the treaty signals to the rest of the world that we take these issues seriously, and that we regard the rights of the disabled to be not simply American rights, but HUMAN rights throughout the world. Rejecting it sends the message that we regard the rights of the disabled as subject to national interests rather than something that is inherent in the very fact of being human, without regard to nation. This is not the behavior of a leader of nations, but the action of a 3rd rate power so insecure that any international cooperation is threatening. Is that really what Republicans think, and intend to say in this vote? Is this what YOU mean?"
So very well said !!!
My Senator Roy Blunt voted AGAINST this bill, maintaining the grand tradition of Todd Akin in denying the people of Missouri their civil rights. I tried to call Senator Roy Blunt's office to discuss this with his staffers but they were "all in a meeting". So I guess the disabled electorate of Missouri doesn't matter to Senator Blunt until he comes up for reelection and he expects us to somehow find our "untouchable" selves a way to the polls to vote for him. Fat chance.
To tie Roy Blunt with Akin would be like tying President Obama to Anthony Weiner--Akin never took office so what difference does he make in the equation exactly? You do know this law has already been enacted in our country--Right?
No it hasn't ducky. This isn't a law that was being passed it's a treaty to foster these things by a declarative statement of intent. Similar to a business proposition when you start your company and are looking for funding. It gives you bargaining room for when you deal internationally with other nations. No law was actually being passed: this will, ideally, help to facilitate the passing of laws in other countries that will then meet the criteria of the declarative statement. Additionally no tying Todd Akin to to Roy Blunt is not the same as President Obama to Anthony Weiner. I wonder why you picked that representative anyways? The point this person was making is that the statements by Akin reflect an attitude of wanting to deny civil rights to individuals (in the case of Akin to women and in the case of Blunt to disabled persons). If you disagree with what that person says then disagree on the substance of what they are stating.
Yet again, the Republicans drag America Backwards in time. Refusing to vote on a treaty from one of their own, shaming themselves in front of one of their disabled leaders. It is time for a revolution in this Nation. We voted, they refuse to accept the consequences... More drastic Action is called for. There is a time for slow deliberate government, and there is a time to get rid of those that refuse to govern to enrich themselves.
What drastic action? You folks painted moderate Romney with such a broad brush his mother would not have recognized him. The politics of personal destruction back-fired on your party when Gabriel Giffords was shot my one of your own in Tuscon.
Ugh the person who shot Gabirle Giffords wasn't politically affiliated. I have no idea what you're talking about here. Secondly you're really going to pandering to a shooting of a woman to try to make a point? That's really how you want to win your discussion? That doesn't make you appear intelligent...that's just sleezy and disturbing. Thirdly what does Mitt Romney have anything to do with this conversation?
What kind of hysterical fears? These people have completely lost their minds and need to be put out to pasture, sooner rather than later.
Republican Party are a bunch OF UNCARING, @!$%#S..THEY MAKE ME ILL.
\
\
\
Yeah--never mind the fact they enacted the original legislation!
And 22 democrats voted against it to do the math 61 to 38 8 rep voted for it that means 22 dems voted against it
You don't do too well in math either, do you? There are only 100 Senators: 61 plus 38 equals 99; I imagine someone was ill or something.
There are currently 46 Republican Senators and 54 Democratic Senators. All the votes cast against the Treaty were by Republicans (38 of those 46), all Democrats present voted for the Treaty, as did 8 Republicans.
Inumerate as well as illiterate - today's GOP!
Mark Kirk of IL suffered a stroke in January 2012, and is listed as "not voting". That's also why the 2/3 threshold is 66, not 67.
Just sent an email to my senator, Saxby Chambliss (ugh). Told him I was disappointed he caved to the right-wing hysteria and that he's going to have a primary challenger anyway and will probably lose so he might as well do the right thing while he has the time.
After all this how can anyone not know the Republican Party has become the new face of evil?
Since the Republican party enacted the original legislation under George HW Bush your post makes absolutely no sense!
What doesn't make sense is you cannot read the word, become?
Hey 22 Democrats voted against it to do the math you going to call them evil to
Fact check. Name them.
I love the progressives who opine on this site. If we already have the law it was based on so why would we need to sign-off on it? I read the treaty and there is one reason not to sign it--what another country does with their disabled citizens is none of our business. I don't want them telling us what to do either!
Yes I am sure Rush gave you your talking point today. This is what you sound like.
"Disabled people need to grow up and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps!"
So Ducky I am presuming that means you're opposed to all warfare, opposed to all international trade agreements, opposed to all imports and exports, and are opposed to people traveling to other nations who are US citizens or non-US citizens traveling to our nation? I am also presuming you're opposed to the oil you used to power your computer imported from other countries. Oh and the computer itself was imported. And the keyboard, and your lights, and everything else. You're opposed to all of that? Yeah I didn't think so. The comforts you have in life come about because of international agreements (treaties). That is why they exist. We want our disabled persons to be able to travel to other nations and be treated as they would be here in America. In order to do that we have to foster a mutual agreement atmosphere where we will treat other people the same way. The fact that we already do makes it an easy transition for us and shows how over-blown the hyperbole against this bill actually is.
Like hell it's not our business. What you just said is immoral. I take care of my disabled child everyday with a positive attitude and a smile on my face, and sincerely so. Grateful that I'm able to do it and in our wonderful country. I do it to advocate for all people with disabilies everywhere, and it's working. It's hard work and damn if it's okay for slovenly Senators (Republicans) to think they can negate what the US is trying to do to raise the quality of life for these human beings anywhere in the world.
The symbolism of Dole, sitting there like an old man hardly recognizing the new generation very succinctly illustrates how much Republicans have changed over the years.
Dole is and always was a RINO. Why didn't they trot out an elephant to make it into a real circus?
Pitiful.
This poster, not Sen. Dole!
Doug, # 120.2 The word as@h#le pops into mind when I see Ducky's posts. Pitiiful, as well. He has no shame, just like the 38 Senators...no shame.
I don't claim to be an international law expert but here goes. Hope this provides some context and addresses some parents concerns.
A treaty may not be construed as preempting state law or any court procedures in the absence of a clear intent to do so.The fact that the matter dealt with in a statute is a proper subject of the treaty-making power does not preclude a state from legislating with respect thereto, in the absence of any treaty provision preventing it. Accordingly, in those cases where there is a conflict between the provisions in a statute and those in a treaty, the state laws are not void as an unwarranted interference with or encroachment on the powers of the federal government. Insofar as they conflict with the treaty provisions, they are merely suspended or controlled during the life of the treaty. Moreover, a treaty does not automatically supersede local laws that are inconsistent with it unless the treaty provisions are self-executing.59 Cal. Jur. 3d Treaties § 11
A self executing treaty establishes enforceable domestic law without any further action by Congress. A non-self executing treaty requires legislative implementation (this is not the vote on the treaty itself) before treaty provisions can be in effect domestically.
Example, a treaty that provides the citizens of each nation shall be free to engage in business within the territory of the other on a nondiscriminatory basis does not require further Congressional action. It would establish the right to engage in business and a conflicting state or federal law would be preempted.
Alternatively, a treaty that establishes international standards for the nondiscriminatory treatment of foreign businesses and called upon the signatories to implement those standards through domestic legislation is a non-self executing treaty.
Let's look at the specifics.
Article 33 explains that States must set up national focal points governments in order to monitor implementation of the Convention's precepts. If there is an agreement to monitor implementation then it is by its very language calling upon the participating nations to implement standards through domestic legislation. It does not confer a right or a private right of action (the ability to sue).
Article 6 - Women with disabilities
1. States Parties recognize that women and girls with disabilities are subject to multiple discrimination, and in this regard shall take measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by them of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure the full development, advancement and empowerment of women, for the purpose of guaranteeing them the exercise and enjoyment of the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the present Convention.
My analysis
6.1 - calls on participating nations to take measures (meaning to pass a law) to ensure full and equal treatment but it does not state participating nations must treat women with disabilities equally. If it stated that nations must treat women with disabilities equally that would seem to establish the right to be treated equally. Instead it states that full and equal enjoyment is the standard and calls on nations to implement something to achieve that.
7.1 States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children.
My analysis
Again, 7.1 states that full enjoyment of human rights and freedoms is the standard and calls on nations to implement something to achieve that. What they implement is up to them and is not stipulated in the treaty and is another indication of non-self executing.
In comparison, if the treaty stated that parents of children with disabilities shall have the right to determine the type of educational system the child will attend, that could be considered self-executing because it confers the right to make that determination. The treaty does not state that and it does not state that the government has the right to make that determination.
In summary, yes, it is a very fine distinction but an important one because it determines whether it carries the force of law or not. It is also important because in this debate, while I respect and am always open to hearing a parent's concern for their child, there are parents in other countries who do not have anywhere near the level of accessibility and support system we enjoy in the USA. They are depending in great part on their nation following the lead of the USA in the treaty to improve the lives and possibly save the life of their child.
I'll resist the impulse to label the "severely conservative" brainless tweebs, although I'm very tempted to do so! These people simply have a different point of reference than we do. I wasn't present during the debates concerning this treaty, so I don't know for sure what transpired, but if those who were for ratification had done a better job at addressing the irrational fears of those who felt we were giving up our sovereignty, we might have seen a historical human rights treaty ratified.
Republicans today have no ideal what it is like to be human. I don't think people in wheel chairs would somehow make us loose our sovereignty...but on the other hand, I am sure the thinking of a GOP senator would be something like this-- Terrorist in wheel chairs may somehow pose a threat to our freedoms? lol
"with a final vote of 61 to 38"...Quoted directly from the blog, totally misleading here, with that kind of vote and 8 Republicans voting for passage, it wasn't just the GOP that voted this down.The Dems hold the majoity in the senate so quite a few of them voted to kill it also, and you wonder why people say there is bias in the mainstream media, she is for all intensive purposes lying here. When it comes to the UN, the devil is in the details, I'm sure there is something in this treaty that is not good for the USA, especially if China, Russia, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have all ratified it and quite a few dems also voted against it.
I think you can clearly count on 38 Republicans to vote such a thing down? There is no need for help from the Democrats, now is there?
Tony you completely misunderstood. All Democrats and 8 Republicans voted to pass the bill. It's not 61 votes AGAINST and 38 FOR. It was the reverse. 61 votes IN FAVOR and 38 AGAINST. The 38 were all Republicans. The 61 in favor were all Democrats with the exception of the 8 Republicans who agreed to the policy. It did not pass because you need at least 66 votes. The blog author was using this thing called "snark" to reflect his personal distaste for the 2/3rd rule. No Dems in the Senate voted against the bill.
Cartoon, # 123.2 Your head will give out before Tony's brick wall of a brain.
shameful
Scrooged in time for Christmas. Such a detestable bunch of Grinches.
These are evil men.
what a bunch of pathetic morons......why is it always the same bunch of idiots in congress who continually embarrass us a nation......I can't wait until 2014 when we can clean the rest of these knuckle draggers out of office
We need a list of 38 names. Anyone?
Tony in Georgia - C'mon, do the arithmetic. There are 53 Democrats in the Senate. They ALL voted for passage. 53 Democrats + 8 Republicans = 61. *Sheesh*
i would vote in favor of it, but at the same time, the real work is in the area of rights to a minimum wage for everybody. We need to raise the standard of living around the world if we want to stop the jobs from being sucked out of our country. Instead, we allow the slave wages to continue so our elite ultra rich corporations can make a few extra dollars.
It seems to me, in my view of the GOP, that they are a self serving, egotistical, moronic society, comprised of mightier-than-thou individuals that fear change and believe that they alone can keep the common people that put them there in the first place must continue to feel "Thor's hammer" beating them down even further. A better world will never occur in the United States unless we rid ourselves of this ill-gotten greed of political machinery and find an "of the people, for the people" solution to the mess we are in.
Rethugs are all wired about "registering" - Hey Numbnuts, newborns who are visibly disabled are ALREADY registered via hospital social workers IMMEDIATELY. And those who have invisible disabilities such as autism end up being "registered" by schools and DPW.
So, got anything else?
Not to mention that even if a newborn isn't "disabled", they're STILL registered with the state - it's called a Birth Certificate.
Hey Dude Proper Action - have you made it to your sixth decade yet? Do you own a gun or two or three? Are you armed to the gills? Why do you fear representative democracy? Why do you fear an international Charter that was signed in the Orpheum Theater right here in San Francisco, USA? Why do you fear an entity that the United States has veto power over?
Why Proper Action are you not thinking this thing through? What in your own lifetime are you upset about that you would create in the canyons of your mind an external boogie man who can conveniently take your thoughtful attention away from your own inside hurt?
Get a better life oh Proper Action before you waste anymore of the one you seem to want to cling to - reality and observational evidence be damned! -Kevo
Question who is in control of the Senate that would be Democrats they have a 51 to 47 majority so it failed 61 to 38 that means Democrats voted against it to if that is the true number but it doesn't say that no truth in reporting 8 Republicans voted for it you stated that but that means 39 Republicans voted against so that means 22 Democrats voted against itto tell the whole story not just the part that you want. This is the problem with the media lead the people around by leaving parts of the story just to sell a paper you are not journalist you are no better then the national enquirer.
Illiterate, inumerate and with no idea that it a 2/3s majority in the Senate is required for that body to provide the "Advice and Consent" as stated in the US Constitution.
2/3s of 100 is 67.
Today's GOP, doing their best to prove Darwin wrong!
@Chris, just because you keep parroting the same obviously incorrect information over and over doesn't make it true. I know that this concept, like math, is difficult, sometimes.