Lee opposes UN treaty and passes an NDAA amendment protecting civil liberties

December 1, 2012 by Daniel Burton

English: Grover Norquist at a political conference in Orlando, Florida. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Even as the fiscal cliff has dominated headlines this week, there has been other news. While a small group of top legislators and White House officials have been hammering away at a compromise that will avert the near certain recession that the fiscal cliff will bring, and news media have been making hay by accentuating the conflict between President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes $1.6 trillion (instead of the $800 billion he proposed during the campaign) and Republicans’ pledge not to raise taxes without corresponding off-sets in spending (Google also: “Grover Norquist“), other lawmakers have continued the work of governing.

Conflict sells papers, but it doesn’t do much for good governance.

Among the stories that caught my attention this week are two about Utah’s Senator Mike Lee.

On Monday, as Donald “I’m actually an alien in a bad disguise” Trump was blaming Romney’s loss on a “maniacal” position on immigration, Lee also made headlines by opposing what looked like a perfectly reasonable UN treaty on disabilities. Joined by Rick Santorum, Lee argued that, while the idea sounded good on its surface, seeking treaty ratification during a lame duck session was problematic, at best.

Citing Article 6, Section 2 of the Constitution, Lee went to lengths to point out that it was not the topic of the treaty that caused him concern, but other more far-reaching effects it would have on US law.

“Our concerns with this convention have nothing to do with any lack of concern for the rights of persons with disabilities,” Lee is quoted as saying in the Salt Lake Tribune. “”They have everything to do with protecting U.S. sovereignty, protecting the interests of parents in the United States and the interests of families.”

On his blog, Lee laid out five reasons for opposing the treaty, including the impact on US sovereignty (treaties become the supreme law of the land under the US Constitution), the potential to shift parental rights and responsibilities to UN established committees, unprecedented establishment economic, social, and cultural entitlements by way of a UN treaty instead of domestic policy, and abortion rights. Further, the treaty would be “superfluous” to already established US law.

Meanwhile, Washington Post opinion writer Dana Milbank called Lee’s opposition “contentious” and said that the opposition to the treaty is more grounded in conspiracy theories than legitimate concerns.

Dianne Feinstein, member of the United States Senate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If Lee is trying to be contentious, his behavior on other issues doesn’t show it. On Thursday night, joined with Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein to sponsor an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) that would assure that American citizens and permanent legal residents apprehended on American soil will be charged and have access to a trial. The amendment was the result of more than a year of work by the two senators, each generally thought ideologically distant from the other.

Rather than looking contentious, Lee comes out looking more principled and careful.

In a statement previous to the vote, Lee said that while national security is important, “it must not be acquired at the expense of our individual liberty. It may well be said that government’s most important basic responsibility is to protect the liberties of its citizens. Our nation has fought wars on American soil and around the world in defense of individual liberty. And we must not sacrifice this most fundamental right in pursuit of greater security, especially when we can achieve security without compromising liberty.”