This is my 100th blog post.
By contacting Senators back home during the August recess in great numbers we can increase the volume on the CRPD. Doing so has value but we must remember that is a tactic not strategy.
We must be strategic in August. It is very important in August that people, who know Senators personally and who also support the CRPD, talk to Senators. People in great numbers, who also happen to have disabilities, and big signs saying, "VOTE YES ON THE CRPD", make a great photo op or back drop, but the most important thing will be quiet conversations between senators and people they know.
People who support the CRPD, know Senators personally, especially veterans and business people, are the ones who can have those quiet conversations. Again, with Senators, not staff.
The message that these people deliver is also very important. The message must be fact-based. That means numbers and information from official documents. Information shared shouldn't sound like talking points. That means it must include something about the Senator or things that are important to him. Three areas that will probably have the most traction generally are: the value of the CRPD to veterans who choose to go overseas for any reason; business opportunities that will be gained if the CRPD were ratified; and U.S. standing in the world improving, if ratification were to happen, on a whole range of human rights issues.
Other things that are part of an effective strategy are -- a compilation of information gathered; timestamps on each piece of information acquired; a centralized place to keep it; a willingness to share it; and, most importantly, a willingness to gather it in the first place. If our August strategy includes these components we will more likely have a shot at a ratification vote in September.
I know we have learned a lot and done more in the last months, especially July, to secure ratification of the CRPD. The biggest lesson we learned is that we did not do enough, the right things, or a combination thereof to get a powerful vote in July.
So now we have a chance to be honest with ourselves and be smart over the next five weeks -- the Senate will be back in session on September 8, 2014. Then, the Senate will work for just three weeks, and go out again to campaign for the fall elections. If the Senate chooses to return to Washington, D.C. after the elections, called a "lame duck" session, we need to remember that Republicans have a strong aversion to voting on treaties in a lame duck session.
All this means we have only three weeks in September to get a vote on ratification. And if the Senate were to have a Republican majority as the result of the November 2014 elections, we probably would not see any action on ratification through 2016.
Bottom line is we must go all out in August 2014. If you are not someone who knows a Senator personally, please check out my two blog posts on six degrees of separation. Better yet, buy my book --http://t.co/Vigyant7aM.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
Friday, August 1, 2014
Thursday, July 31, 2014
The CRPD and the Gentlemen from Tennessee
Yesterday in the Washington Post Dan Balz had an
interesting article on the statesmen, who
have held or hold statewide office, in Tennessee. The trigger for the article
was the recent funeral of Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee and the pending
primary challenge faced by Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. Balz and the
people he interviewed claim that Tennessee has a long legacy of electing
Republicans, who work across party lines, endorse consensus building, and
recognize that governing, not just speech-making, is part of the job. The men
that Baltz included in the list, as similar to Howard Baker, are Tennesseans who practice these principles -- the current Governor, Bill Haslam, Senators Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker
(ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), and Bill Frist,
former Senate Majority Leader, also my former boss.
Senator Bill Frist supports the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
If you read his piece you learn compelling reasons to support CRPD ratification
from a Republican in the Howard Baker tradition.
In the Balz piece one statement from Governor Haslam stands
out. Haslam, who was mayor of
Knoxville before being elected governor in 2010, got a start in politics as an
intern in Baker’s Senate office. One of his jobs was to reply to constituents
about Baker’s support for the Panama Canal Treaty. The letters, he recalled, ran
100-1 against the treaty. “I was sitting there thinking, ‘Why in the world is
our guy for this?’ ”
he said. “It was actually a great lesson. . . .
He honestly thought it was the best thing for the country.”
I suspect if Governor Haslam were a Senator he would
vote for ratification of the CRPD. Ratifying the CRPD is certainly in the best
interest of our country.
Senators Alexander and Corker, having been characterized
as being in the Howard Baker mold, have a powerful opportunity in the next few
hours – urge the Senate leadership to hold a vote on the CRPD tomorrow. Talking about
getting the right kind of attention. Talking about doing the right thing, given
the opposition and timidity of others. Wow. They would have 54 million new
friends. They would be saying -- facts not fear, facts not pandering, and facts not
political posturing -- are the things that inspired them to act in a fine,
long-witnessed, Tennessean tradition.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
CRPD: Why There Should Be a Senate Floor Vote this Week
We need to know how where each Senator stands.
We need to recognize that there will never be a better time for a Senate floor vote on the CRPD.
The opposition wins if there is no vote this week.
There will never be greater support for the CRPD than we coordinated this time.
The general public, the media, Democrats and Republicans see other issues as being more worthy of their time and attention than ratification of the CRPD.
Messaging matters. All messages have been delivered. Those that want to avoid/stop action on the CRPD have had enough traction to keep us from 67 public endorsements of the CRPD.
The CRPD ratification leadership team should be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The Democrat leadership in Congress should be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The Republicans in the Senate, who support the CRPD, should be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The Republicans in the Senate, who oppose the treaty, should be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The business leaders, who support the CRPD, should be be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The veterans groups' leaders, who support the treaty, should be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The rest of us need to call Reid's office demanding a vote (202) 224-3542.
U.S. democracy is a unique creature. It works if we are engaged. We can live with the results of a floor vote this week. The uncertainty of no action this week is not an outcome we should accept.
Thank you.
Patricia Morrissey
We need to recognize that there will never be a better time for a Senate floor vote on the CRPD.
The opposition wins if there is no vote this week.
There will never be greater support for the CRPD than we coordinated this time.
The general public, the media, Democrats and Republicans see other issues as being more worthy of their time and attention than ratification of the CRPD.
Messaging matters. All messages have been delivered. Those that want to avoid/stop action on the CRPD have had enough traction to keep us from 67 public endorsements of the CRPD.
The CRPD ratification leadership team should be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The Democrat leadership in Congress should be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The Republicans in the Senate, who support the CRPD, should be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The Republicans in the Senate, who oppose the treaty, should be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The business leaders, who support the CRPD, should be be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The veterans groups' leaders, who support the treaty, should be camping out in Majority Leader Reid's office demanding a floor vote.
The rest of us need to call Reid's office demanding a vote (202) 224-3542.
U.S. democracy is a unique creature. It works if we are engaged. We can live with the results of a floor vote this week. The uncertainty of no action this week is not an outcome we should accept.
Thank you.
Patricia Morrissey
Saturday, July 26, 2014
CRPD: An Open Letter to Senate Leaders
Dear Senator Reid and Senator McConnell:
Today is the 24th birthday of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I was there 24 years ago. I drafted many Republican amendments that were adopted, as did Randy Johnson, now with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a supporter of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The ADA passed 24 years ago because Members of Congress in both parties, numerous committees of jurisdiction, and people from all walks of life and philosophical leanings came together, worked out their differences in good faith, and made it happen.
Ratification of the CRPD, an international disability treaty, ratified by over 145 nations of the 198 that belong to the U.N., shaped the CRPD. Its ratification should have sailed through the Senate. It has not. I know I need not recount its path for you. Now we are at a very critical point. Those of us who support the CRPD want a vote on its ratification next week. We see next week as the last chance in a very, very long time to secure ratification. We also want to know where each of the 100 Senators stands on ratification. That's also important information for you.
The only way the CRPD will NOT be a trigger point in the fall elections is to take it off the table. The only way to take it off the table is to ratify it now. Here are the points that make the case for this strategy:
First, the Supreme Court in Bond vs. the United States has taken the risks to our sovereignty out of the picture.
Second, anyone who can read the words in Article 25 of the CRPD can see that access to reproductive health care for people with disabilities IS NO MORE OR NO LESS than access available to persons WITHOUT disabilities. The only way that access to abortion would be expanded in this country would be if a state legislature, the U.S. Congress, or our courts decided to address it and were successful.
Third, the Supreme Court in the Bond vs. the United States also reaffirmed the balance of power between state and federal governments, so home schoolers can relax. The only body that can tamper with parents' right to homeschool is their legislature. And, given the veracity of home schoolers, that's not going to occur.
Fourth, there are votes. There are 54 million people with disabilities in this country. Some have made the suggestion that ratification of the CRPD is an "inside-the-beltway" issue. Now all Senate offices know how their constituents feel, both home schoolers and people with disabilities. For people with disabilities, who are both Democrats and Republicans, how a Senator feels about ratification has become a proxy for how persons with disabilities think Senators view the ADA and people with disabilities. There's no dialing back on these points. That may be why so many Republican Senators have not been public about their vote on the CRPD.
Fifth, there has been wild speculation about how the CRPD will be used in courts. You and I know it won't be because of the non-self-executing paragraph in the CRPD resolution. And, remember there's John Roberts heading the Supreme Court. He's as good as the German goalie in the last game of the World Cup this year.
As I see things, there are from 24 to 28 Senators waiting for a signal from leadership that a vote for ratification of the CRPD will not be used against them or weaken their standing with their base. You, Gentlemen, could give that signal and I pray to God you do.
Thank you.
Patricia Morrissey
Today is the 24th birthday of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I was there 24 years ago. I drafted many Republican amendments that were adopted, as did Randy Johnson, now with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a supporter of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The ADA passed 24 years ago because Members of Congress in both parties, numerous committees of jurisdiction, and people from all walks of life and philosophical leanings came together, worked out their differences in good faith, and made it happen.
Ratification of the CRPD, an international disability treaty, ratified by over 145 nations of the 198 that belong to the U.N., shaped the CRPD. Its ratification should have sailed through the Senate. It has not. I know I need not recount its path for you. Now we are at a very critical point. Those of us who support the CRPD want a vote on its ratification next week. We see next week as the last chance in a very, very long time to secure ratification. We also want to know where each of the 100 Senators stands on ratification. That's also important information for you.
The only way the CRPD will NOT be a trigger point in the fall elections is to take it off the table. The only way to take it off the table is to ratify it now. Here are the points that make the case for this strategy:
First, the Supreme Court in Bond vs. the United States has taken the risks to our sovereignty out of the picture.
Second, anyone who can read the words in Article 25 of the CRPD can see that access to reproductive health care for people with disabilities IS NO MORE OR NO LESS than access available to persons WITHOUT disabilities. The only way that access to abortion would be expanded in this country would be if a state legislature, the U.S. Congress, or our courts decided to address it and were successful.
Third, the Supreme Court in the Bond vs. the United States also reaffirmed the balance of power between state and federal governments, so home schoolers can relax. The only body that can tamper with parents' right to homeschool is their legislature. And, given the veracity of home schoolers, that's not going to occur.
Fourth, there are votes. There are 54 million people with disabilities in this country. Some have made the suggestion that ratification of the CRPD is an "inside-the-beltway" issue. Now all Senate offices know how their constituents feel, both home schoolers and people with disabilities. For people with disabilities, who are both Democrats and Republicans, how a Senator feels about ratification has become a proxy for how persons with disabilities think Senators view the ADA and people with disabilities. There's no dialing back on these points. That may be why so many Republican Senators have not been public about their vote on the CRPD.
Fifth, there has been wild speculation about how the CRPD will be used in courts. You and I know it won't be because of the non-self-executing paragraph in the CRPD resolution. And, remember there's John Roberts heading the Supreme Court. He's as good as the German goalie in the last game of the World Cup this year.
As I see things, there are from 24 to 28 Senators waiting for a signal from leadership that a vote for ratification of the CRPD will not be used against them or weaken their standing with their base. You, Gentlemen, could give that signal and I pray to God you do.
Thank you.
Patricia Morrissey
Friday, July 25, 2014
CRPD: Words We Use Really Matter
There is no doubt that those of us who support ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) are fired up. Next Tuesday, July 29th (my birthday) at 12:15 p.m. at 3rd Street NW between Pennsylvania Ave NW and Maryland Ave SW in D.C., just a few blocks from the Capitol, a march and rally will start. If you want to RSVP for it go to https://www.facebook.com/events/675884719173229/.
I have been following what is being said about what's going on. Messaging is important. Two aspects that are particularly significant are statements that talk about the adverse consequences of the CRPD or statements about how Republican Senators will act. Today one example, stands out -- Daily Caller: Homeschoolers Confident They Can Sink Disability Convention, by Blake Neff
(http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/24/homeschoolers-confident-they-can-sink-disability-convention/).
Blake Neff interviewed Will Estrada, Director of Federal Relations for the Home School Legal defense Fund. One quote from Will Estrada is this -- "We are concerned that activist judges could use this to, somewhere down the road, restrict parents from being able to homeschool". At another point Blake Neff says that Will Estrada said that "he did not doubt the honesty or good intentions of those supporters, but it was necessary to look beyond the short term to what might happen many years after ratification." Estrada also said to Neff, "It's just a matter of time before this treaty is used by activists to roll back freedom we enjoy as Americans... A liberal, internationalist judge could run with this."
Will Estrada is ignoring the non-self-executing clause that is in the CRPD resolution that would PREVENT anyone, a judge or anyone else, from using treaty text to make the case for something. Now, AND IN THE FUTURE, anyone could use ONLY U.S. law to make their case. Many people do not know or understand what the facts and implications are that will impact future events. They take comments by Will Estrada at face value and are scared.
Later in the article Blake quotes Estrada saying -- "enough Republicans will tow the line to halt ratification". That is an interesting phrase. It suggests that Republicans cannot think for themselves, or worse, that they are controlled by one constituency, home schoolers. At this point all Senators are aware of the broad and diverse support for ratification and the wide range of benefits that will result if the treaty were ratified.
The question I would like to put to Republican Senators who have not yet publicly stated where they stand on ratification of the CRPD is this:
Knowing what you know about how government works and the rule of law, would you vote against something because a small number of your constituents fear its unfounded future effects? I hope not.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
I have been following what is being said about what's going on. Messaging is important. Two aspects that are particularly significant are statements that talk about the adverse consequences of the CRPD or statements about how Republican Senators will act. Today one example, stands out -- Daily Caller: Homeschoolers Confident They Can Sink Disability Convention, by Blake Neff
(http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/24/homeschoolers-confident-they-can-sink-disability-convention/).
Blake Neff interviewed Will Estrada, Director of Federal Relations for the Home School Legal defense Fund. One quote from Will Estrada is this -- "We are concerned that activist judges could use this to, somewhere down the road, restrict parents from being able to homeschool". At another point Blake Neff says that Will Estrada said that "he did not doubt the honesty or good intentions of those supporters, but it was necessary to look beyond the short term to what might happen many years after ratification." Estrada also said to Neff, "It's just a matter of time before this treaty is used by activists to roll back freedom we enjoy as Americans... A liberal, internationalist judge could run with this."
Will Estrada is ignoring the non-self-executing clause that is in the CRPD resolution that would PREVENT anyone, a judge or anyone else, from using treaty text to make the case for something. Now, AND IN THE FUTURE, anyone could use ONLY U.S. law to make their case. Many people do not know or understand what the facts and implications are that will impact future events. They take comments by Will Estrada at face value and are scared.
Later in the article Blake quotes Estrada saying -- "enough Republicans will tow the line to halt ratification". That is an interesting phrase. It suggests that Republicans cannot think for themselves, or worse, that they are controlled by one constituency, home schoolers. At this point all Senators are aware of the broad and diverse support for ratification and the wide range of benefits that will result if the treaty were ratified.
The question I would like to put to Republican Senators who have not yet publicly stated where they stand on ratification of the CRPD is this:
Knowing what you know about how government works and the rule of law, would you vote against something because a small number of your constituents fear its unfounded future effects? I hope not.
Thank you.
Common Grounder
Thursday, July 24, 2014
CRPD: Media Coverage Is Picking Up
Gabby Brown with New Partners, which is doing work for the U.S. International Council on Disabilities, compiled a great list of media clips today. I thought I would pass them on to you.
NATIONAL/LOCAL COVERAGE
Associated Press: Dole, vets groups renew push for disability treaty
July 23, 2014
New York Times: Dole, Slumped but Sharp, Returns to Senate to Push Disabilities Treaty
By Jeremy W. Peters
July 23, 2014
Roll Call: Bob Dole, Veterans Groups Push Disabilities Treaty
By Humberto Sanchez
July 23, 2014
CNN: Dole back on Hill to try and push through U.N. disabilities treaty
By Jessica McHugh
July 23, 2014
Los Angeles Times: Bob Dole returns to Capitol, takes on GOP critics of disability treaty
By Michael A. Memoli
July 23, 2014
Washington Post: IBM’s vision for accessibility: technology that adapts to user in real-time
By Mohana Ravindranath
July 23, 2014
Navy Times: Sen. Harkin: Recruit the disabled for non-combat jobs
By Leo Shane III
July 23, 2014
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20140723/NEWS/307230059/Sen-Harkin-Recruit-disabled-non-combat-jobs
Daily Beast: Bob Dole Says Rob Portman Won’t Support Disabilities Treaty Because He Supports Gay Marriage
By Ben Jacobs
July 23, 2014
Christian Post: UN Treaty Sparks Fight Between Homeschoolers, Former Republican Presidential Candidate
By Morgan Lee
July 23, 2014
KSHB (Kansas): Fmr. Sen. Bob Dole returns to Capitol Hill
By Kat Boutwell
July 23, 2014
KVOA (Arizona): News 2 Tucson at 5pm (VIDEO)
July 23, 2014
KSNT (Kansas): KSNT 27 Kansas First News (VIDEO)
July 24, 2014
KCRA-SAC (California): KCRA 3 Reports @ 5pm (VIDEO)
July 23, 2014
KHAS (Nebraska): Off-Air (VIDEO)
July 23, 2014
KTKA (Kansas): KTKA 49 Kansas First News (VIDEO)
July 23, 2014
KTVB (Idaho): News at Four (VIDEO)
July 23, 2014
WTXL (Florida): ABC 27 News at 6:00 (VIDEO)
July 23, 2014
WTVA (Mississippit): WTVA News at Five (VIDEO)
July 23, 2014
WTIC-HFD (Connecticut): Fox CT News at 4 (VIDEO)
July 23, 2014
WIS-COL (South Carolina): WIS News 10 at 4PM (VIDEO)
July 23, 2014
KHOG (Arkansas): 40/29 News Sunrise (VIDEO)
July 23, 2014
OPINION
MSNBC (Maddow Blog): Disabilities treaty gets a second chance
By Steve Benen
July 23, 2014
Esquire (Politics Blog): Another Chance to Be Human
By Charles P. Pierce
July 23, 2014
NewsWorks (Blog): Who could possibly oppose a pact aiding the disabled? Take a guess
By Dick Polman
July 23, 2014
We Can Do This If We Try (Blog): The CRPD and Michael Farris
By Patricia Morrissey
July 23, 2014
--
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
The CRPD and Michael Farris
Today in the Federalist Michael Farris, Founder of the Home School Legal Defense Fund, has an opinion piece -- What I Wish Bob Dole Understood about UN Treaties
(http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/23/what-i-wish-bob-dole-understood-about-un-treaties/).
He frames his arguments on two fundamental principles of international law. They may well be, but the logic he applies in his piece is tangled.
The first principle is -- "rules must be kept". That means, if you sign and ratify a treaty, you agree with it. The second principle is -- "equality of nations". Michael Farris says this means, "Every nation decides for itself whether to enter into any international commitment." How else could it be?
Michael Farris then makes these points:
U.S. ratification means that the United States is committing itself to adhere to the treaty... U.S. ratification does not have any direct effect on the law in any other nation.... The idea that our ratification will not cause legal changes in the United States but will result in real changes in other nations manages to violate both of the most fundamental principles of international law.
Huh? Whether U.S. action has "any direct effect" on another nation depends on when and where you look. Right now other nations are watching what we do about the CRPD and wondering why we are stalling on ratification. Words matter. Actions matter more. If we ratify the CRPD they will include us, reach out to us, and consider us when they make or revise policies and implement them. If we don't, you better believe they will be less likely to include us, reach out to us, and consider us when how persons with disabilities are treated is the issue. What Michael Farris sets aside so quickly is that we are all in this together, so we better join hands.
With regard to impact on our laws -- multiple federal agencies did a legal analysis of our laws and said we are in good shape and need no new laws in order to comply with the CRPD. This analysis did not say we will NEVER need to enact another law with regard to persons with disabilities.
Then he makes these observations about some of the reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted on and passed yesterday. I'll have to take his word for it, because I have not seen the text yet.
First, there is the non-self-executing declaration. This only means Congress has the duty to pass legislation to implement the treaty rather than allowing courts to directly enforce its provisions. This does not change our legal duty to comply; it only changes the agency in charge of enforcing compliance.
I must be honest. I don't understand this point. We need no new laws to comply with the CRPD. As I understand "non-self-executing", which is a condition in other treaties the U.S. has ratified, a person cannot use text in a treaty to take a matter to court. The person can only use U.S. law to do that.
Second, there is the federalism declaration. All this means is that legislative authority on disability issues will not change merely because of the ratification. This declaration does not relieve our nation from its duty to comply. And, in any event, the power of Congress to legislate under the General Welfare Clause is essentially unlimited, as the Supreme Court confirmed in the Affordable Care Act litigation. Congress will have all of the power it needs to implement the treaty.
I must be honest. I don't understand this point either. As other nations that have ratified the CRPD have done, we will include text in the resolution on the CRPD that describes HOW we will comply. If the text on federalism that was accepted yesterday is not strong enough or clear enough, then why not offer an amendment on the Senate floor to improve it? Curtis Bradley, a conservative legal scholar, has already provided testimony to do that.
Next Michael Farris brings up the case of the Romeike family, a German family who emigrated here, so they could home school their children. Although the family faced multiple legal challenges in their efforts to remain here, Michael Farris fails to point out, the family is able to REMAIN here idefinitely. All legal challenges are over. So, the U.S. system WORKED. Again, if there is objection to the parents' rights/best interests of the child declaration accepted yesterday in committee, then offer an amendment on the Senate floor to improve it.
The CRPD means something. The U.S. if it decides to ratify the CRPD, as other countries have done, has the right to say HOW not IF it will comply with it. Michael Farris fails to acknowledge that distinction.
Thank you.
Patricia Morrissey
Ph.D. in special education from the Pennsylvania State University
(http://thefederalist.com/2014/07/23/what-i-wish-bob-dole-understood-about-un-treaties/).
He frames his arguments on two fundamental principles of international law. They may well be, but the logic he applies in his piece is tangled.
The first principle is -- "rules must be kept". That means, if you sign and ratify a treaty, you agree with it. The second principle is -- "equality of nations". Michael Farris says this means, "Every nation decides for itself whether to enter into any international commitment." How else could it be?
Michael Farris then makes these points:
U.S. ratification means that the United States is committing itself to adhere to the treaty... U.S. ratification does not have any direct effect on the law in any other nation.... The idea that our ratification will not cause legal changes in the United States but will result in real changes in other nations manages to violate both of the most fundamental principles of international law.
Huh? Whether U.S. action has "any direct effect" on another nation depends on when and where you look. Right now other nations are watching what we do about the CRPD and wondering why we are stalling on ratification. Words matter. Actions matter more. If we ratify the CRPD they will include us, reach out to us, and consider us when they make or revise policies and implement them. If we don't, you better believe they will be less likely to include us, reach out to us, and consider us when how persons with disabilities are treated is the issue. What Michael Farris sets aside so quickly is that we are all in this together, so we better join hands.
With regard to impact on our laws -- multiple federal agencies did a legal analysis of our laws and said we are in good shape and need no new laws in order to comply with the CRPD. This analysis did not say we will NEVER need to enact another law with regard to persons with disabilities.
Then he makes these observations about some of the reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations voted on and passed yesterday. I'll have to take his word for it, because I have not seen the text yet.
First, there is the non-self-executing declaration. This only means Congress has the duty to pass legislation to implement the treaty rather than allowing courts to directly enforce its provisions. This does not change our legal duty to comply; it only changes the agency in charge of enforcing compliance.
I must be honest. I don't understand this point. We need no new laws to comply with the CRPD. As I understand "non-self-executing", which is a condition in other treaties the U.S. has ratified, a person cannot use text in a treaty to take a matter to court. The person can only use U.S. law to do that.
Second, there is the federalism declaration. All this means is that legislative authority on disability issues will not change merely because of the ratification. This declaration does not relieve our nation from its duty to comply. And, in any event, the power of Congress to legislate under the General Welfare Clause is essentially unlimited, as the Supreme Court confirmed in the Affordable Care Act litigation. Congress will have all of the power it needs to implement the treaty.
I must be honest. I don't understand this point either. As other nations that have ratified the CRPD have done, we will include text in the resolution on the CRPD that describes HOW we will comply. If the text on federalism that was accepted yesterday is not strong enough or clear enough, then why not offer an amendment on the Senate floor to improve it? Curtis Bradley, a conservative legal scholar, has already provided testimony to do that.
Next Michael Farris brings up the case of the Romeike family, a German family who emigrated here, so they could home school their children. Although the family faced multiple legal challenges in their efforts to remain here, Michael Farris fails to point out, the family is able to REMAIN here idefinitely. All legal challenges are over. So, the U.S. system WORKED. Again, if there is objection to the parents' rights/best interests of the child declaration accepted yesterday in committee, then offer an amendment on the Senate floor to improve it.
The CRPD means something. The U.S. if it decides to ratify the CRPD, as other countries have done, has the right to say HOW not IF it will comply with it. Michael Farris fails to acknowledge that distinction.
Thank you.
Patricia Morrissey
Ph.D. in special education from the Pennsylvania State University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)