Question.

[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.

So why bother?

1) pressure to other countries to conform
2) giving the US a place on the panel that will make recommendations.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

The ADA includes provisions for the UN to interject, observe, question, etc??

No... and that is something that we should NEVER have over us...

The UN as a humanitarian organization with no real power... all well and good... Anything beyond that.. bad

 

[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?

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.

A fair answer, but the US's "Person's With Disabilities Act" is the model that the UN strives for. It should show that we care about the disabled andshows that we are a leader in that concern. That should be enough without the UN getting a toe inside our door.