It is very disturbing that the long-held beliefs of a few "anti-government" loners have been adopted by some "GOP" elected officials in Idaho. While the states belonging to the former Confederacy reflect generic anti-federal attitudes with generational roots, Idaho is a different and more poisonous case.
It is far too easy for most of us to assume our current democracy is strong enough to endure the constant anti-government challenges so popular now. The reality is that these challenges to unity are seriously undermining the health of this country.
"Out of many, One" may well be an obsolete slogan before too long unless more of us start defending a unified country. We do not pledge loyalty to any one state, we pledge to "one country". Time to start acting as if we mean that pledge.
It is far too easy for most of us to assume our current democracy is strong enough to endure the constant anti-government challenges so popular now. The reality is that these challenges to unity are seriously undermining the health of this country.
"Out of many, One" may well be an obsolete slogan before too long unless more of us start defending a unified country. We do not pledge loyalty to any one state, we pledge to "one country". Time to start acting as if we mean that pledge.
6
By taking this course of action, Idaho reduces the ability of those residing in Idaho(mostly single mothers) to collect child support from deadbeats overseas. Thus the Idaho taxpayer ends up footing the bill. What is there that these representatives from Idaho do not understand? Yet they claim to be "fiscally responsible".
7
When you mix xenophobia with schizophrenia, you obviously have the formula for Idaho Republican legislators.
10
Like all ideologues these nine (and there are many more) Idaho legislators are incapable of being embarrassed. These are the black-and-white world view people who this year boycotted a Hindu session-opening invocation , believe the Bible is source of the Constitution, and waste millions fighting the ACA, gay rights, and and funding the folly to "take back" land the State has never owned.
The Idaho Legislature and the Idaho Republican Party, with former disgraced U.S. Senator Larry Craig as its treasurer, does specialize in hugely embarrassing itself and many of it's citizens.
They just don't care.
The Idaho Legislature and the Idaho Republican Party, with former disgraced U.S. Senator Larry Craig as its treasurer, does specialize in hugely embarrassing itself and many of it's citizens.
They just don't care.
15
This isn't a scientific analysis but my observation from reading the news and personal experience is that more American men leave the country and abandon their child support obligations than men who do the reverse. Or maybe they go to Idaho to avoid their child support obligations in other states. If that is the case, then I understand why the Idaho legislators would not want to see this treaty enacted. Obviously, they think that Idaho is not part of the of the U.S., which would make payments by the Federal government to Idaho - foreign aid?
11
I worked at the Idaho Bureau of Child Support Services. It serves so many more than just "155,000 poor women and children". It serves every child support paying parent, because a neutral third party is keeping track of payments. Children get the money they need each month instead of hoping Dad- or Mom- will decide child support should get priority over the new car payment. Both parents can focus on other child rearing topics when they communicate. It's one less bone of contention, out of their hands. It's automatic. It serves employers who have wage withholding orders, they write only one check per month. There's a mechanism for payers and payees to solve problems without hiring a lawyer. Finally, the taxpayers benefit by keeping needy children off welfare rolls.
But our embarrassingly extremist right wing legislators see child support services as serving only bad, unsubmissive and greedy women who are failure as wives and who steal children and money from God-fearing menfolk. And of course anyone non-Christian must be Islamic and therefore the devil incarnate, so must be vociferously rejected at every opportunity. And it gets them recognition and money from other crazies.
But our embarrassingly extremist right wing legislators see child support services as serving only bad, unsubmissive and greedy women who are failure as wives and who steal children and money from God-fearing menfolk. And of course anyone non-Christian must be Islamic and therefore the devil incarnate, so must be vociferously rejected at every opportunity. And it gets them recognition and money from other crazies.
20
It is easy to tell that you have absolutely no clue as to what is in this bill. I would suggest that you go an read it before going off half cocked on conservatives who are trying to figure out a way around it.
Just a second here. This international treaty proposes to obligate foreign countries to enforce US child support orders in their countries and to obligate the US to enforce foreign child support orders in the US.
First of all, how many cases are we talking about? And how do we know that there will not be cases where a foreign court imposes a child support obligation on a parent outside of the country in which the non-custodial parent does not have the ability to defend himself or in cases where the child or children have been abducted to a foreign land.
This is a treacherous area to give powers over American citizens to foreign governments. There is extreme complexity in international custody arrangements.
There was a much publicized case where an American born child was taken to Brazil, the Brazilian mother died, and the Brazilian grandparents or stepfather was granted custody over the American father. It would have added insult to injury if the Brazilian family law court had also awarded the Brazilian family child support payments from the American father who was being denied access to his child.
The US and state governments pursue child support payments against non-custodial parents. The cost to the government of collecting in a foreign country will exceed any recoveries. Any middle income custodial parent who was not poor enough to qualify for benefits would not have the financial resources to pursue a parent in a foreign country.
First of all, how many cases are we talking about? And how do we know that there will not be cases where a foreign court imposes a child support obligation on a parent outside of the country in which the non-custodial parent does not have the ability to defend himself or in cases where the child or children have been abducted to a foreign land.
This is a treacherous area to give powers over American citizens to foreign governments. There is extreme complexity in international custody arrangements.
There was a much publicized case where an American born child was taken to Brazil, the Brazilian mother died, and the Brazilian grandparents or stepfather was granted custody over the American father. It would have added insult to injury if the Brazilian family law court had also awarded the Brazilian family child support payments from the American father who was being denied access to his child.
The US and state governments pursue child support payments against non-custodial parents. The cost to the government of collecting in a foreign country will exceed any recoveries. Any middle income custodial parent who was not poor enough to qualify for benefits would not have the financial resources to pursue a parent in a foreign country.
3
I appreciate your concerns about the Brazilian case but, the father's access to child aside...the child still requires financial support. A child is not a possession.
As to the second half of your comment about costs involved in enforcement, do you have a basis for those assertions? I'm curious about how you came to believe or determine what the costs would be and that they would exceed any recoveries.
As to the second half of your comment about costs involved in enforcement, do you have a basis for those assertions? I'm curious about how you came to believe or determine what the costs would be and that they would exceed any recoveries.
6
What? Do you know whats its like to have a parent walk out and not take financial responsibility? It means more tax dollars to make sure those innonence children Have food, shelter and housing. No matter where they live they have a responsibility to these children and under that treaty they can no longer hide. This is a massive problem to protectvthevrights of every child.
8
The United States is a party to many international treaties. Why are the states required to incorporate this treaty - the Hague Convention on International Recovery of Child Support... etc. by specific reference into state law? Very few people are asking the right questions which is why this uniform legislation out of Chicago needed to be stopped.
What they are really talking about is an international data exchange with the locus of control at the Hague. The data to be shared includes the most private and sensitive data - assets, property, vital statistics, employment, etc. That data would be made available to people in countries party to the treaty. The locus of control for the system would be at the Hague. Should the U.S. participate in "global systems" that include information on it's citizens when they don't control the systems? I don't think so.
The above are just a few of the issues with this legislation. It needed to fail and now we need to expand our understanding what they think they are doing.
What they are really talking about is an international data exchange with the locus of control at the Hague. The data to be shared includes the most private and sensitive data - assets, property, vital statistics, employment, etc. That data would be made available to people in countries party to the treaty. The locus of control for the system would be at the Hague. Should the U.S. participate in "global systems" that include information on it's citizens when they don't control the systems? I don't think so.
The above are just a few of the issues with this legislation. It needed to fail and now we need to expand our understanding what they think they are doing.
4
Wait...what about Chicago???
4
So, does this mean you don't believe in banks?
3
Boise is a great place and most of the Treasure Valley is tolerant. The rest of the state is very red and hates the fact that Mr. Obama is the current President. Even when presented with the facts many in the Famous Potatoes state will not listen.
12
The opinions of Idaho State Legislature Representative Ryan Kerby are especially intelligent....he's on to something and I would not be surprised if in short order he is elected to represent Idaho in the United States Senate for a brief intermezzo before announcing a run for President. I'm sure all of America joins me in wishing we could witness Mr Kerby in this coming Republican Primary season debating those seasoned political geniuses...Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Rand Paul and, of course, the Reverend Huckabee. It will be like a sparkling mirror ball of thoughtful Republican policy!
9
Well if it arms Jon Stewart with enough new material to convince him to continue doing his show, rather than leave....sign me up!
8
This is what happens when you do not vote, fringe candidates get elected that have zero ability other than cause trouble, collect campaign contributions and generally spend their terms mucking things up for everyone else
29
Idaho, like all Tea Party states, wants federal money--in much larger amounts than they have paid in taxes-- without any federal oversight. And these people decry lazy welfare moochers?
34
A perfect argument in support of States Rights - with a little imagination, Idaho proves that they can compete with Mississippi.
12
Really? One woman in Idaho MIGHT (in the mind of some Idaho man) be treated as less than equal and as a result yank protection from millions of people?
12
According to the article, unless Idaho relents, its entire "child support enforcement arm" will be dismantled. Hmmm... did not the NYT just yesterday lament the fact that a number of states were unjustly penalizing the poor -- mostly poor men -- in charging child support payments that were unrealistic and in taking away their drivers licenses if they were delinquent.
If I connect the dots here between these two NYT pieces, it appears to be the federal government that that is actually behind the onerous child support systems at the state level. What say you, Mr. Johnson?
If I connect the dots here between these two NYT pieces, it appears to be the federal government that that is actually behind the onerous child support systems at the state level. What say you, Mr. Johnson?
6
Why must they be mutually exclusive?
I don't think you're doing all that well connecting the dots.
I don't think you're doing all that well connecting the dots.
3
I think MAH is spot on target. The child support enforcement system including these draconian penalties that destroy the lives of fathers primarily are the product of the uniform law commission in Chicago. Uniform law is yet another institutionalized system of corruption. We no longer have the government we all thought we had. We have the sock puppets for the political circus and the real power is hidden and their names don't appear on the ballot.
1
There you go again with Chicago.
3
Thank you, Idaho! The cause might be worthy, but we should not compromise our national sovereignty for any reason at all.
4
How does signing an international treaty threaten our national sovereignty? I'm pretty sure it can't.
26
I am not from Idaho, but I do recall that years ago the federal Department of Transportation told Idaho that it would forgo its highway trust fund money if it did not up its drinking age to 21. Idaho demurred and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court. Idaho lost, but whatever you think, they stood on the principle that state government is not just a conduit of whatever Washington wants it gets. Not a whole lot of principle among politicians at the state level in this country when it comes to so-called "free money" from Washington.
10
Then why not get out of the many thousands of treaties the U.S. participates in right now, from the way planes are landed at international airports through the regulations on exported products from Seattle?
Modern life revolves around these negotiated sovereignty issues--perhaps the Pacific Northwest would like to return to the 1700s, but much of the rest of the country would like to have life in the 21st century.
Modern life revolves around these negotiated sovereignty issues--perhaps the Pacific Northwest would like to return to the 1700s, but much of the rest of the country would like to have life in the 21st century.
22
We don't need to bow to the fantasy " international community."
5
We had nine thinking legislators on a judicary committee vote to kill a bill that would have given foreign governments and agencies access to our data bases and subject our citizens to foreign courts rulings and judgements. This was not acceptable to those legislators nor to the people of Idaho. The feds are threatening to withhold funds if we don't accept the terms of this treaty which is illegal under 1992 N.Y. vs the U.S. the Supreme Court ruled the federal government cannot use threats to get states to enact legislation.
Also see National Federation of Independent Business vs Sebelius. What these nine legislators are doing is protecting Idaho's citizens and it's Sovereignty as a state. It's too bad other states have not caught on to this coercive scheme by the feds. The liberal thinkers of America would let the government buy away all of our freedoms with our own money if they could. We have proudly said no thank you, and if we need to pay for the process ourselves so be it. We take too much money from the federal government already.
Also see National Federation of Independent Business vs Sebelius. What these nine legislators are doing is protecting Idaho's citizens and it's Sovereignty as a state. It's too bad other states have not caught on to this coercive scheme by the feds. The liberal thinkers of America would let the government buy away all of our freedoms with our own money if they could. We have proudly said no thank you, and if we need to pay for the process ourselves so be it. We take too much money from the federal government already.
12
Wow. You're actually blaming this on liberals?
3
Im afraid its the conservatives who sell our country and abandon our workers
5
Wouldn't a person taking action to get child support voluntarily give personal information.
In the 1992 case The Court found that two of three incentives for the states to comply were constitutional. The first incentive, "monetary" incentive, allowed states to collect surcharges for radioactive waste from other States. This was upheld under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The "access" incentive, allowed states to raise surcharge to states that missed deadlines or eventually denying access to disposal. This was held to be a permitted exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
The third incentive, requiring states to "take title" and assume liability for waste generated within their borders was held to be impermissibly coercive and a threat to state sovereignty, thereby violating the Tenth Amendment. The "take title" provision to be severable, and, noting the seriousness of the "pressing national problem" allowed the remainder of the Act to survive.
Please respond with the juijustu legal brief on how the 1992 ruling applies to the child support process. Are you arguing that defending the rights citizens to receive court ordered child support threatens Idaho's sovereignty?
Yes you are right on one point: Idaho hypocritically takes $1.23 back in federal funding for every $1 in federal taxes paid. Those liberal thinker states such as New York and California get about 85 cents to the dollar.
In the 1992 case The Court found that two of three incentives for the states to comply were constitutional. The first incentive, "monetary" incentive, allowed states to collect surcharges for radioactive waste from other States. This was upheld under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The "access" incentive, allowed states to raise surcharge to states that missed deadlines or eventually denying access to disposal. This was held to be a permitted exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause.
The third incentive, requiring states to "take title" and assume liability for waste generated within their borders was held to be impermissibly coercive and a threat to state sovereignty, thereby violating the Tenth Amendment. The "take title" provision to be severable, and, noting the seriousness of the "pressing national problem" allowed the remainder of the Act to survive.
Please respond with the juijustu legal brief on how the 1992 ruling applies to the child support process. Are you arguing that defending the rights citizens to receive court ordered child support threatens Idaho's sovereignty?
Yes you are right on one point: Idaho hypocritically takes $1.23 back in federal funding for every $1 in federal taxes paid. Those liberal thinker states such as New York and California get about 85 cents to the dollar.
12
This is great news for conservatives and believers in personal responsibility. Taxpayer funds will no longer be used to provide crutches to those who refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions. The following text in the article is telling:
"The people with the most to lose are women who, through violence or a bitter divorce, have been left fearful of personally pressuring an ex-husband for child support, or even perhaps of being found by him."
Seriously? Why can't these women take personal responsibility and get the child support from the fathers of their children? They have guns, don't they? If they feel threatened, they can use their guns for self-defense. Why are the depending on the teat of government welfare to do the dirty job for them? It is all about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!! Stop depending on the government to do the dangerous and dirty work for you! Why do you think we have a gun culture??
"The people with the most to lose are women who, through violence or a bitter divorce, have been left fearful of personally pressuring an ex-husband for child support, or even perhaps of being found by him."
Seriously? Why can't these women take personal responsibility and get the child support from the fathers of their children? They have guns, don't they? If they feel threatened, they can use their guns for self-defense. Why are the depending on the teat of government welfare to do the dirty job for them? It is all about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!! Stop depending on the government to do the dangerous and dirty work for you! Why do you think we have a gun culture??
14
Guji2, that's a real gagger...I guess your deep thinking means you are closer to Idaho than the rest of us in Washington.
2
And this is why, when traveling in Europe, I tell those who ask that I'm Canadian. I'm tired to death of discussing American ignorance and paying for American arrogance. We need to join the rest of the world like we all live on the same planet.
45
Are you arguing that Canadians are less ignorant than Americans? As if people in other countries are inherently more enlightened than we are. If you think so, perhaps you should pay more attention when you travel. Better yet, try a destination less comfortable for you than Europe, perhaps a place whose residents are not as eager to reinforce your sense of self-loathing. Your eyes might be opened.
4
Washington Heights, I've been to many parts of the world, and truthfully, in all of them Canadians are seen, rightfully or wrongly, as less arrogant and internationally ignorant than Americans, as are most other first world inhabitants. But I can get away with the Canadian thing because I have can best approximate their accent.
I don't loathe myself or my country. But I am embarrassed that this great country can be a horrible neighbor in the world out of great ignorance and foolishness, and in the doing harm the most innocent and helpless among us. If liberty and freedom don't come with an increased sense of responsibility for the society we all live in together, both as a country and a planet, it's not sustainable and we don't deserve it.
I don't loathe myself or my country. But I am embarrassed that this great country can be a horrible neighbor in the world out of great ignorance and foolishness, and in the doing harm the most innocent and helpless among us. If liberty and freedom don't come with an increased sense of responsibility for the society we all live in together, both as a country and a planet, it's not sustainable and we don't deserve it.
14
Yes, I think we could safely and reasonably argue, based on this issue alone, that Canadians are "less ignorant" than Americans, or really, folks from Idaho. Or, most specifically, Republicans from Idaho. Or maybe Republicans in general. And it is willful ignorance. Yes, I travel too, and when I hear of people planning to emigrate to the USA, or dreaming about it, I tell them to look elsewhere if they really want a better life. There are simply many better choices.
9
The federal government has exceeded it's constitutional authority. The federal government does not have jurisdiction under the Constitution to legislate family law. That is reserved to the states. Therefore the federal government has no right to enter any international treaty that would contravene nor restrict a state to legislate in family law.
Take notice, federalism is under assault, and will get worse if TTP treaty passes, as again the federal government is negotiating in areas of law that the Constitution does not grant to the federal government but rather are reserved to the states.
Take notice, federalism is under assault, and will get worse if TTP treaty passes, as again the federal government is negotiating in areas of law that the Constitution does not grant to the federal government but rather are reserved to the states.
11
While it is true that Family law is the state's turf... the problem is that people do not remain in that turf.. People move about from county to county, state to state, and for some country to country. What are you going to make anyone who leaves the jurisdiction?
I'm a paralegal in Michigan. It sounds to me like no one here seems to understand how this is actually done. Anytime you have a foreign order, technically that order has to be registered with the County Circuit Court and then they notice out a hearing to all interested parties to object - if you don't object - it's the order of the court. And in the case of child support, the local court can only enforce the order - not make modification to the order OR do anything else - like modify parenting time, custody or child support.
If you have a problem with any particular Order, you deal with it at it's source (jurisdiction) and/or in some case - you may be able to have that particular order (or part of a case/issue) moved to your local court.
I'm a paralegal in Michigan. It sounds to me like no one here seems to understand how this is actually done. Anytime you have a foreign order, technically that order has to be registered with the County Circuit Court and then they notice out a hearing to all interested parties to object - if you don't object - it's the order of the court. And in the case of child support, the local court can only enforce the order - not make modification to the order OR do anything else - like modify parenting time, custody or child support.
If you have a problem with any particular Order, you deal with it at it's source (jurisdiction) and/or in some case - you may be able to have that particular order (or part of a case/issue) moved to your local court.
10
Gina, of course you make perfect sense and your comment was perfectly written. It's just that "The Federal Government" and we don't want to, and , oh yeah, G U N S !!!
3
Think about it. If a foreign court has granted a child support order against an American citizen in a foreign country, the US court is obligated to collect from the American, and the American's only potential relief is to travel to the foreign country to seek to change the child support order. here would be no option to have the issue moved to a local court. This treaty gives full legal value to a decision in a foreign court.
Not a new thing for Idaho. In the late 90s it became the last state in the union and possibly the civilized world to get a workers compensation law for farm workers, after news photos of a migrant worker with both arms cut off and a story about the state's lack of workers comp. The governor, an onion farmer, was thought to be in the farmers corner, but turned humanitarian renegade and pushed through and signed the bill. For at least several years afterward the farmers tried getting it repealed. Could still be trying.
15
I was under the impression (perhaps incorrectly) that the state of Texas has no workers compensation laws in effect. Or did they at one time but no longer? I could imagine that being the result of a Bush or Perry administration, actually.
What? No mention of our State Senator Sheryl Nuxoll who is part of the paranoid clamor that tabled this bill? A few of her recent comments are enough to reveal the nuttiness that is the Extremist Right. She publicly stated that Idaho is at risk from Sharia Law when this bill went through the senate in 2013. She compared the Affordable Care Act to the Holocaust - with Insurance Companies representing the Jews doomed to annihilation (seriously). She recently walked out on a guest convocation at the senate by a Hindu priest citing, "Hindu [sic] is a false religion" and the US "is a Christian Nation". While refusing to apologize for offending the Hindu faithful and Reasonable people alike, she compared herself to Mother Theresa while reporting that she had heard from someone "who lived with the Hindus" that there is a "great amount of infanticide and abortion" in their culture. I guess she wins. And we lose.
48
I'll tell you where the mistake was made in this : no one was bright enough to cross out the words "women" and "children" and insert "Guns". Gosh, then they'd have voted for it!
Idaho has some ugly excuses for men.
Idaho has some ugly excuses for men.
50
It's real simple: decisions have consequences. If Idaho chooses this route (which by definition means that it's chosen to dictate what the other 49 states get or don't get out of this), then federal funds get cut off.
The state has the right to do this; no one is disputing that. But don't try to have it both ways - refuse to participate in the program and then expect the federal government to just hand over funds anyway.
The state has the right to do this; no one is disputing that. But don't try to have it both ways - refuse to participate in the program and then expect the federal government to just hand over funds anyway.
59
Idaho makes sense. it is time to say, we will not sign treaties with countries which do not respect women.
6
We "respect" our women so much we denied them Constitutional inclusion, throwing out the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982.
Sorry, but Idaho only makes sense to a Saudi.
Sorry, but Idaho only makes sense to a Saudi.
14
What if the treaty forces a country that does not respect women to show *more* respect for women? Like for example giving them access to child support from deadbeat dads? Why shouldn't we sign on to a treaty like that? Do you have a better way that a treaty to get such countries to treat women with more respect?
16
Think about it -- countries around the world adopt a standard, and Idaho says, "we will not sign treaties with countries that do not respect women."
Women and children are a lot safer in many of those other countries than in Idaho!
Women and children are a lot safer in many of those other countries than in Idaho!
18
More republicans harming American women and children so that men can escape their familial responsibilities under the guise of "freedom." Shameful.
28
Maybe the Idaho legislators read the NY Times article on child support yesterday and became enlightened on the problems with the U.S. system. Journalism at work.
5
What if a German born father of an American born child and his wife, the mother of the child, travel to Germany to visit family. The father decides he doesn't want to return to the US with the children, divorces in Germany and is awarded custody as well as child support from the American mother, who lacks the wherewithal to get her children back to the US. How is this international treaty going to help the woman get her children back to the US. There is already a treaty that children cannot travel across a border unless both parents consent.
Oh, there you go again. So, again...why must they be mutually exclusive? Please explain.
1
Looks like Idaho has some common sense that the rest of the country has forgotten. Let parents work out their problems without the long arm of the federal government and even countries around the world getting involved in personal disputes. This treaty is a nightmare that only the lawyers and bureaucrats will love as you surrender all your personal autonomy to a global structure that you will be helplessly servile under.
9
And if something cannot be worked out? Is a woman supposed to go to her ex every week/month? And often times risk assault? What if her ex leaves the state or even the country? Your insistence on reducing government and bureaucracy really means destruction of society in the sense of us living together and helping each other.
24
What an inordinately naïve thing to say. Or do you really believe that only kids who have parents who are wise enough to work out their own personal disputes deserve to eat and have clothing and live in safety?
21
Clearly you have never seen child abuse, partner abuse, and other problems. The rest of the world is trying to work out a manageable understanding to minimize the difficulties of helping them, and Idaho sees it as individual rights. No, Idaho's action tramples on the individual rights of children and women.
18
So, Idaho legislators are willing to literally cut the nose of vulnerable women and children to symbolically spite the Federal Government's face.
49
Nothing here says that Idaho cannot spend its own money to run its "child support enforcement arm." Why does a state need to have money from Washington for that function, anyhow?
1
@MAH: This treaty deals entirely with parent(s) who are no longer in the jurisdiction of the state of Idaho. This has to do with navigating this issue when one parent is out of the country. Do you understand?
1
How can we expect to be taken seriously by the rest of the world when we have a dysfunctional US Congress and states putting their egos ahead of the interests of children?
Also, why does it take the agreement of all 50 states to implement an international treaty? It only takes 38 to amend the US constitution, and aren't international treaties the responsibility of the US Senate anyway?
Also, why does it take the agreement of all 50 states to implement an international treaty? It only takes 38 to amend the US constitution, and aren't international treaties the responsibility of the US Senate anyway?
59
The federal government does not have jurisdiction over family law. What is happening is that the federal government is threatening the states to get them to cede authority over international child support payments to the federal government. When all fifty states have caved in, the Senate will have the opportunity to ratify the treaty or not.
2
Why not separate the bill from the state's funding? Huh? Because you know the bill is so unpopular you have to threaten people to get it passed. GD bullies.