PDA

View Full Version : New economic union to trump US Supreme Court


BucEyedPea
06-26-2006, 06:10 PM
Or how NAFTA and/or "fake"free-trade erode sovereignty:

North American Union (http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15623)planned by Bush expands NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union that would have supremacy over all US law, even over the US Supreme Court in any matter related to economic and political intergration of the US, Canada and Mexico.

"The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place this behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input."

Currently we have under..
Chapter 11 NAFTA:
Allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.

Uses rules from the UN!!! (http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=8#chap11)

These tribunals are done behind closed-doors.

If a decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.

Are you people aware that most of congress did not read the NAFTA rules. I know conservatives don't like Kerry but look at what he says about this later in the article which is a conservative news publication. Sixth paragraph down.

This should be a BIPARTISAN issue.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2006, 06:12 PM
NAFTA cases already overturning US laws (http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=91)

A Massachusetts and a Mississippi case settled in US courts to be reviewed by a NAFTA tribunal, and won't be seen by US Supreme Court.

Abner Mikva, a former chief judge of the federal appeals court in Washington and a former congressman, is one of the three Nafta judges considering the Mississippi case. He declined to discuss it but did offer his perspective on Chapter 11.

"If Congress had known that there was anything like this in Nafta," he said, "they would never have voted for it."

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2006, 06:18 PM
NAFTA cases already overturning US laws (http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=91)

A Massachusetts and a Mississippi case settled in US courts to be reviewed by a NAFTA tribunal, and won't be seen by US Supreme Court.

Abner Mikva, a former chief judge of the federal appeals court in Washington and a former congressman, is one of the three Nafta judges considering the Mississippi case. He declined to discuss it but did offer his perspective on Chapter 11.

"If Congress had known that there was anything like this in Nafta," he said, "they would never have voted for it."

And if this thing truly ends up usurping American sovereignty, Congress will repeal it. And it will be a bipartisan vote.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2006, 06:27 PM
I wouldn't take it for granted when there is no congressional oversight on that North American Union being done, or when they don't read the bills they pass.
I think more people need to know about this.

Adept Havelock
06-26-2006, 06:53 PM
And if this thing truly ends up usurping American sovereignty, Congress will repeal it. And it will be a bipartisan vote.

With both parties in the hip pocket of big business? I certainly don't have the faith in Congress you do. The only way congress gets behind this is if enough constituients are outraged, and with the media's complacency....I just don't see it happening.

I'll agree that this certainly should be a bipartisan issue, but any opposition will be spun as anti-free trade rhetoric of a sort similar to that given by protestors at every meeting of the G-8 and WTO. Just a hunch.

htismaqe
06-26-2006, 07:12 PM
They were putting this thing in place 15 years ago.

www.prisonplanet.com

Logical
06-26-2006, 07:33 PM
Great, just f*cking great.

the Talking Can
06-26-2006, 08:23 PM
this has been going on for awhile...

banyon
06-27-2006, 07:43 AM
I am very much against the Ch. 11 investor-state arbitration procedure. It's too bad that they are trying to ramrod that straight into the FTAA virtually word-for-word.

Most of these cases have overturned ordinary environmental laws, so I'm pretty much pissed about them.

Brock
06-27-2006, 07:55 AM
Nafta should have never, ever been signed. Goddamn corporate sellouts.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 07:58 AM
Nafta should have never, ever been signed. Goddamn corporate sellouts.

We WILL see a North American Union in the model of the EU in our lifetime.

ct
06-27-2006, 08:08 AM
NAFTA cases already overturning US laws (http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=91)

A Massachusetts and a Mississippi case settled in US courts to be reviewed by a NAFTA tribunal, and won't be seen by US Supreme Court.

Abner Mikva, a former chief judge of the federal appeals court in Washington and a former congressman, is one of the three Nafta judges considering the Mississippi case. He declined to discuss it but did offer his perspective on Chapter 11.

"If Congress had known that there was anything like this in Nafta," he said, "they would never have voted for it."

That Mississippi case sounds like a crock of shit, and should have been overturned. A $500M judgement for companies worth $8M? WTF?

Admittedly, I have never heard of this before this little article, so my info is incomplete. They also did not discuss at all this case in Massachusetts. Anyone else know more?

ct
06-27-2006, 08:09 AM
We WILL see a North American Union in the model of the EU in our lifetime.

I agree, which will immediately solve the illegal alien issue huh? Won't solve the problem, just rewrite the definitions.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 08:26 AM
I agree, which will immediately solve the illegal alien issue huh? Won't solve the problem, just rewrite the definitions.

yep

BucEyedPea
06-27-2006, 08:29 AM
Has anyone clicked on that .pdf in that article...Holy Hades!
That man is pushin' for a parliamentary system for the whole union!!! :banghead:

Brock
06-27-2006, 08:31 AM
And if this thing truly ends up usurping American sovereignty, Congress will repeal it. And it will be a bipartisan vote.


Yeah. Right.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2006, 08:31 AM
We WILL see a North American Union in the model of the EU in our lifetime.

If enough people know AND care...I think it can be stopped.
I'm not willin' to settle for apathy by allowing this to happen.
I think it can be stopped with a grass-roots bi-partisan effort.
First step...inform. Next repeal NAFTA.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 08:45 AM
If enough people know AND care...I think it can be stopped.
I'm not willin' to settle for apathy by allowing this to happen.
I think it can be stopped with a grass-roots bi-partisan effort.
First step...inform. Next repeal NAFTA.

I don't think it can ever happen. Too many people are "living the American dream" thanks to the corporations, taking out $500k loans that they'll never be able to pay back on their $90k salary.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2006, 09:10 AM
Eh? I don't really follow what you're sayin' htismaqe:

(1) That we'll never get integrated politically using trade pacts as a stepping stone because too many in America have enjoyed the American Dream?

or the opposite...

(2) That too many people will make out better economically ( even if in debt) if we are united economically first and then integrated politically?

banyon
06-27-2006, 09:21 AM
If enough people know AND care...I think it can be stopped.
I'm not willin' to settle for apathy by allowing this to happen.
I think it can be stopped with a grass-roots bi-partisan effort.
First step...inform. Next repeal NAFTA.

It's possible. The FTAA was basically stopped by popular uprisings in South America. Of course, those people are a lot more desparate and less lazy than us.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 09:34 AM
Eh? I don't really follow what you're sayin' htismaqe:

(1) That we'll never get integrated politically using trade pacts as a stepping stone because too many in America have enjoyed the American Dream?

or the opposite...

(2) That too many people will make out better economically ( even if in debt) if we are united economically first and then integrated politically?

(3) Too many people are wrapped up in their material lives, paid for by their corporate salary, to care about stopping this thing.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2006, 10:59 AM
It's possible. The FTAA was basically stopped by popular uprisings in South America. Of course, those people are a lot more desparate and less lazy than us.
Lazy....not all!
Desperate...perhaps!
But such people tend to buy into Marxists solutions( at least their lower classes of which they have many)...which isn't the answer either. It's not that I don't think markets and investments wouldn't lift them up either. I just don't like this Third Way Socialism of the corporations via these trade treaties. It's nothing more than resdistributing America's wealth. I know someone who has literally read ALL of NAFTA and there is little free trade about it: subsidies,protectionism, free-markets for profits, socialism for losses...it's mostly command economy. Other than lowering tariffs free-trade happens amongst the people without wide-scale govt micro-management.

South America is used to authoritarian govt's and has a class of people that are basically full time students, even as adults. That doesn't help. I have friends from there.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2006, 11:09 AM
(3) Too many people are wrapped up in their material lives, paid for by their corporate salary, to care about stopping this thing.

Well, there is certainly something to be said about this.
I see this playing out a particular way though.

Our authorities have us workin' so hard, much harder than in the past, just to maintain our lifestyles. Throw into the mix havin' to keep up with all the taxes I gather they like us being so occupied...too occupied to see what's really happenin.' That to me includes being divided about the current war...meanwhile this unreported development is quietly taking place within the Dept of Commerce.

On the other hand, I don't know about you, but my observation ( particularly as it is affecting my industry) is that there is a general unease without quite knowing what to put our fingers on. As I understand, this unease, is not just in America but global...even amongst Mexicans in Mexico. I mean not everyone works for the largest corporations. So not everyone is benefitting.

Small businesses and business who wish to remain in America, just can't sustain themselves in the current environment they have to go with the flow just to remain competitive.

I am for free-markets, believe me...but in the United States first. Regarding globalistic free-trade...on a scale of 1-10 I'm a 7....where I am not is protecting our sovereignty and a few other areas.

htismaqe
06-27-2006, 11:22 AM
Well, there is certainly something to be said about this.
I see this playing out a particular way though.

Our authorities have us workin' so hard, much harder than in the past, just to maintain our lifestyles. Throw into the mix havin' to keep up with all the taxes I gather they like us being so occupied...too occupied to see what's really happenin.' That to me includes being divided about the current war...meanwhile this unreported development is quietly taking place within the Dept of Commerce.

On the other hand, I don't know about you, but my observation ( particularly as it is affecting my industry) is that there is a general unease without quite knowing what to put our fingers on. As I understand, this unease, is not just in America but global...even amongst Mexicans in Mexico. I mean not everyone works for the largest corporations. So not everyone is benefitting.

Small businesses and business who wish to remain in America, just can't sustain themselves in the current environment they have to go with the flow just to remain competitive.

I am for free-markets, believe me...but in the United States first. Regarding globalistic free-trade...on a scale of 1-10 I'm a 7....where I am not is protecting our sovereignty and a few other areas.

Now you're getting somewhere.

alnorth
06-27-2006, 05:29 PM
This article is a bunch of crap.

We supposedly are bound by the rules of the UN, and we follow them whenever we damned well please. Same with NAFTA. This idiot presents a hypothetical case of "what if NAFTA rules one of our laws illegal and fines us?" He then immediately leaps the conclusion that, "well gosh I guess we have to do everything NAFTA says and pay the fine."

Says who?

In a trade agreement you will have trade disputes. They are going to happen, period. You need some type of independant arbitor to decide which side loses. This is international trade. We cant tell Canada that they must petition US courts to hear their trade grievances any more than they would tell us to go to a Canadian court. We wouldnt put up with it, and neither should they, there would be no expectation of a fair unbiased decision.

Why do you think we have a WTO? For that matter, why isnt this fool of an author bitching about that organization? We ended a steel tariff not that long ago because the WTO ruled that it was unfair to other nations and would have authorised retaliatory tariffs against the US. We could have told the WTO to go to hell, but that isnt in our best interests. We changed our law to avoid retribution, but we didnt have to.

At the end of the day if the deal no longer suits us we can end it, NAFTA can enforce their provisions only as long as it is in the interests of all parties to let them. As soon as it is unreasonably unfair to Canada or Mexico, they will leave, same as the US.

Non-binding arbitration exists all over the place for minor insignificant little issues. If it doesnt go your way, you have to decide if your willing to accept the consequences of trashing the whole deal because your unhappy with a minor ruling. (and despite what anyone says, any arbitration in NAFTA is non-binding, either side can end the agreement whenever it suits them.)

BucEyedPea
06-27-2006, 05:35 PM
Non-binding arbitration exists all over the place for minor insignificant little issues. If it doesnt go your way, you have to decide if your willing to accept the consequences of trashing the whole deal because your unhappy with a minor ruling. (and despite what anyone says, any arbitration in NAFTA is non-binding, either side can end the agreement whenever it suits them.)

Could you please show me where this is non-binding?
A tribunal decision technically cannot be appealed. It can be submitted to a local court for review, to ensure that there was no corruption or gross misinterpretation of the rules but that's it.

Also, did you click the pdf which goes into detail about how the man who is pushing feels that there is not enough legal infrastructure so we need more such as a parliament.

I know how this could be handled: the same way it is when you do business with someone out of state...you have to sue them in their jurisdiction. That would at least maintain sovereignty and also be a free market incentive to stay out of risky countries.

alnorth
06-27-2006, 05:42 PM
Could you please show me where this is non-binding?

Also, did you click the pdf which goes into detail about how the man who is pushing feels that there is not enough legal infrastructure so we need more such as a parliament.

I know how this could be handled: the same way it is when you do business with someone out of state...you have to sue them in their jurisdiction. That would at least maintain sovereignty and also be a free market incentive to stay out of risky countries.

Its non-binding because we can leave NAFTA any time we want.

As for your "solution", thats basically what happens when you have no trade agreement, and theres nothing inherently wrong with that. If you want to force every company in the US to fight for every inch of favorable treatment in foreign nations against hostile protective tariffs and/or regulation, and every foreign company to fight for every inch in the US, fine. Sometimes we decide that it would be better for all parties to draw up an agreement where we will treat each other more favorably than the rest of the world, and anything that we werent able to think about can go through independant non-binding arbitration.

Thats what a basic trade agreement is, we have it with most of the world via the WTO, and a stronger one through NAFTA. At some point we decided it was a good idea. If that changes, we are by no means required to stay within the agreement, but leaving NAFTA will mean giving up whatever trade concessions we won from Canada and Mexico (and vice-versa).

Let me pose a counter-question: why isnt this author pissed about the WTO's ruling against us on our steel tariffs? Would it not attract an audience like a hot-button NAFTA issue, or did he simply not know about the realities of the world?

BucEyedPea
06-27-2006, 05:49 PM
Its non-binding because we can leave NAFTA any time we want.

As for your "solution", thats basically what happens when you have no trade agreement, and theres nothing inherently wrong with that. If you want to force every company in the US to fight for every inch of favorable treatment in foreign nations against hostile protective tariffs and/or regulation, and every foreign company to fight for every inch in the US, fine. Sometimes we decide that it would be better for all parties to draw up an agreement where we will treat each other more favorably than the rest of the world, and anything that we werent able to think about can go through independant non-binding arbitration.

Thats what a basic trade agreement is, we have it with most of the world via the WTO, and a stronger one through NAFTA. At some point we decided it was a good idea. If that changes, we are by no means required to stay within the agreement, but leaving NAFTA will mean giving up whatever trade concessions we won from Canada and Mexico (and vice-versa).

Let me pose a counter-question: why isnt this author pissed about the WTO's ruling against us on our steel tariffs? Would it not attract an audience like a hot-button NAFTA issue, or did he simply not know about the realities of the world?
I don't think so...
Nafta tribunal decisions are binding, but not WTO as I understand.
Nafta is a treaty. Last I checked a treaty is recognized as binding under our the Constitution and becomes senior to it.


John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower's Secretary of State. Dulles believed as follows: "Under our Constitution treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conform to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can over-ride the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the state and give them to the federal government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights."

I say any treaty that inherently usurps our Constitution should not be valid or binding and should be revoked...but I don't believe it is seen that way.

And there is nothing free trade about Nafta.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2006, 05:53 PM
Oh...and I can't speak for why the author is so pissed off.
You'll have to contact him.

Adept Havelock
06-27-2006, 05:55 PM
And there is nothing free trade about Nafta.


:clap: Sad but true.

alnorth
06-27-2006, 06:04 PM
I don't think so...
Nafta tribunal decisions are binding, but not WTO as I understand.
Nafta is a treaty. Last I checked a treaty is recognized as binding under our the Constitution and becomes senior to it.




I say any treaty that inherently usurps our Constitution should not be valid or binding and should be revoked...but I don't believe it is seen that way.

And there is nothing free trade about Nafta.

One minor problem with that. NAFTA is not a treaty under US law. People often use the word treaty loosely since it has many definitions, but the constitution explicitely defines what is and is not a treaty under the law. The constitution states that a treaty must be passed by 2/3 of the Senate, and even then could be later revoked by Congress and the president. The Senate passed NAFTA only by a simple majority margin of 61-38-1

As far as US law is concerned, NAFTA is classified as a "congressional-executive agreement" that was only passed with a simple majority. We can get rid of it at any time with a simple majority vote.

We generally only sign treaties to end wars. I dont know if we've ever entered into a trade treaty for exactly the concerns you voiced. (Its kind of hard to get 2/3 of the senate to agree to anything if we later decide to break the treaty) Simple agreements are easy to void.

This author really should have done his research.

patteeu
06-28-2006, 09:50 AM
Last I checked a treaty is recognized as binding under our the Constitution and becomes senior to it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "senior to it" but if you mean what I think you mean, I don't believe that's ever been true.

htismaqe
06-28-2006, 10:31 AM
Its non-binding because we can leave NAFTA any time we want.

The part in blue is true.

The part in red is RELEVANT.

Our government has sold us down the river. They'll never leave NAFTA.

banyon
06-28-2006, 10:34 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by "senior to it" but if you mean what I think you mean, I don't believe that's ever been true.

she means what you think she means.

I think I've made the same statement to her

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 10:44 AM
One minor problem with that. NAFTA is not a treaty under US law. People often use the word treaty loosely since it has many definitions, but the constitution explicitely defines what is and is not a treaty under the law. The constitution states that a treaty must be passed by 2/3 of the Senate, and even then could be later revoked by Congress and the president. The Senate passed NAFTA only by a simple majority margin of 61-38-1

As far as US law is concerned, NAFTA is classified as a "congressional-executive agreement" that was only passed with a simple majority. We can get rid of it at any time with a simple majority vote.

We generally only sign treaties to end wars. I dont know if we've ever entered into a trade treaty for exactly the concerns you voiced. (Its kind of hard to get 2/3 of the senate to agree to anything if we later decide to break the treaty) Simple agreements are easy to void.

This author really should have done his research.


Believe it or not I know about all that.
But you're basically talkin' about "six of one, half a dozen of the other."

Under our law that is supposed to be true. But under international law it isn't true.

htismaqe is correct, the elites in both parties will never get us out because if you click on that lengthy .pdf within the article those who have been advocating this stuff most strongly are claiming that Nafta is not EVEN enough...they want more infrastructure: a parliament for one.

This indicates that Nafta is merely a stepping stone to political union.
Don't think that because the EU was rejected in Europe,that those elitists are just going to quit. They're not! They just come back with another angle under which to sell the same schemes. I read that the elites in Europe, are currently re-writing their laws despite that rejection. Sounds like when Hillary's health care was rejected here, she just went and rewrote Medicaid regs.

See what I mean?

Couple this with failure to handle the border and the superhighway scheme this will continue to tighten around our necks. I mean really if the 14th and some even claim the 16th Amendments were never truly ratified properly, then your loophole does not give me a lot of confidence.


We generally only sign treaties to end wars.
That may have been true at one time...but I don't know about recent or post WWII history. I can think of one right off...our treaty with the UN. That treaty got us into Korea and Vietnam ( SEATO). It would be a good thing to research though.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 10:49 AM
I'm not sure what you mean by "senior to it" but if you mean what I think you mean, I don't believe that's ever been true.


Article VI.2 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

banyon
06-28-2006, 10:54 AM
Article VI.2 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


what part of this statement makes it superior to the US (not state) constitution?

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 11:01 AM
Definition of supreme:
•final or last in your life or progress; "the supreme sacrifice"; "the supreme judgment"
•sovereign: greatest in status or authority or power; "a supreme tribunal"

patteeu
06-28-2006, 11:07 AM
Article VI.2 (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

What I'm reading here sounds like it's talking about being superior to state constitutions and laws. Treaties don't trump the US constitution.

go bowe
06-28-2006, 11:15 AM
Definition of supreme:
•final or last in your life or progress; "the supreme sacrifice"; "the supreme judgment"
•sovereign: greatest in status or authority or power; "a supreme tribunal"
read up on your constitution...

article six makes the constitution, laws passed in accordance with the constitution and treatys the supreme law of the land...

unless abrogated, we are bound by the treaty provisions...

however, treaties are not superior to the constitution itself...

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 11:16 AM
What I'm reading here sounds like it's talking about being superior to state constitutions and laws. Treaties don't trump the US constitution.


What's the difference? :shrug:
Particularly when we hear that the Constitution is "supreme" law of the land?
I just quoted what is called the "supremacy clause."

For me, the Constitution is supreme only within its delegated powers...not the current in vogue liberal view that it holds on all counts. These powers are specific and enumerated.

If you have any cases that clarify your take on this I'd appreciate but even W. Cleon Skousen's Center for Constitutional Studies, which is conservative, says otherwise and backs the claim up with notes from the Framers from their talks and debates on our Constitution.

go bowe
06-28-2006, 11:26 AM
* * *
For me, the Constitution is supreme only within its delegated powers...not the current in vogue liberal view that it holds on all counts. These powers are specific and enumerated.
* * *specific and enumerated...

ok, what does the constitutional term due process mean?

it's not specifically spelled out in the constitution...

all written documents, including the constitution, must be interpreted to one extent or another...

it's not nearly so black and white when it comes to applying those "specific and enumerated" powers to real world situations...

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 11:53 AM
Hey go blow... you obviously follow a loose construction (liberal) of the Constitution which I do NOT support. This thread is not intended to go in that direction, a direction where a conservative/liberatarian such as myself will never come to terms with a modern liberal and on which I do not have the time. But I'd appreciate you're sticking to points instead of insults and name calling. K?

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 12:01 PM
read up on your constitution...
Oh I have.

unless abrogated,...

How does this get done? I am really curious about this, not being wise-ass.
Aren't they contracts?

we are bound by the treaty provisions...
This is what I'm saying.
What if that treaty takes certain powers away from certain branches? See below:

however, treaties are not superior to the constitution itself...

Then please explain to me how NAFTA ( with an unelected international tribunal) has the power to enact tariffs, and has many other trade powers when our Constitution gives such powers to our elected Congress and to no one else?

Explain also to me how Republican Henry Hyde can claim that the clause that gives only our Congress the power to declare war is "archaic?" On a de facto basis it is archaic. Could this have something to do with our treaty with the UN? Hasn't been a declared war since.

banyon
06-28-2006, 01:13 PM
specific and enumerated...

ok, what does the constitutional term due process mean?

it's not specifically spelled out in the constitution...

all written documents, including the constitution, must be interpreted to one extent or another...

it's not nearly so black and white when it comes to applying those "specific and enumerated" powers to real world situations...

But I'd appreciate you're sticking to points instead of insults and name calling. K?

:shrug: I'm confused. Did you call her a constitution? Or did you say that she was specific and enumerated?

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 01:32 PM
:shrug: I'm confused. Did you call her a constitution? Or did you say that she was specific and enumerated?
Ha!Ha!
I AM specific and enumerated. How 'bout that!

BTW the honorable go bo changed my screen name to "pea" as in "pea" brain I presume, since he told me to read the Constitution.

I just wish he'd explain to me why Lawrence Tribe and Scalia, both who've read the same doc, can come to completely different interpretations, just as go bo and I. Unless he means Scalia and I are two "peas" in a pod...a compliment that would actually endear me to Mr. go bo. :D

alnorth
06-28-2006, 04:58 PM
The part in blue is true.

The part in red is RELEVANT.

Our government has sold us down the river. They'll never leave NAFTA.

We are the government.

If our representatives decide NAFTA is a good idea, then by extention, the people of the united states believe it is a good idea, and those who believe NAFTA should end are in the minority.

If the people and the congress are in direct conflict, that disagreement will be quickly remedied sooner than you can say "Dubai Ports Deal", or at least within a few elections.

alnorth
06-28-2006, 05:03 PM
Believe it or not I know about all that.
But you're basically talkin' about "six of one, half a dozen of the other."

Under our law that is supposed to be true. But under international law it isn't true.

You can stop right there. We can leave NAFTA whenever we choose, international law is irrelevant.

We are not enslaved by a monolithic government ruled by a secret Illuminati organization from shadowy cloak-filled rooms. Nor do foreign governments secretly rule the US or will rule us in nearly any conceivable future. Quite the opposite really, if the world wants us to do something, they are well advised to keep that a secret since American voters tend to be a bit ornery and rebellious when they suspiciously perceive the world wants us to do something.

Congresscritters love their job, I think events of this year where they breathlessly turned their opinions on a dime with the wind of public opinion should have convinced you of that by now. If they see their job is threatened by a failed re-election campaign, they will generally do whatever they have to in order to continue reporting to work every so often in D.C. Those who fail to do so or feel they must take a principled stand where the people are dramatically opposed, will be replaced.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 05:55 PM
We are the government.

If our representatives decide NAFTA is a good idea, then by extention, the people of the united states believe it is a good idea, and those who believe NAFTA should end are in the minority.
Those who know what NAFTA actually says are also in the minority.
That INCLUDES our reps.

If the people and the congress are in direct conflict, that disagreement will be quickly remedied sooner than you can say "Dubai Ports Deal", or at least within a few elections.

I see a lot of complaining on this and the immigration issue with no real change, in fact a resistance to change. Nothing but a BS amnesty plan which is not what the people seem to want. Care to explain?

If you feel this way why are you resistant to talking about NAFTA by the people, making known how NAFTA really plays out or what some vested interests are pushing under the radar. Not everything goes the way of Dubai Ports Deal. It has to be known about. It gets made known in a conservative newspaper and you downplay it as nothing to be concerned about. Why wait for damage to occur or when it may be more difficult to get out of? Do you see the US getting out of the UN?

You can dismiss it all you want as a strange conspiracy idea. This has nothing to do with any “strange” conspiracy ideas. It’s Congress not reading what they sign whether or not there are vested interests who seek an ultimate political union. That pdf is enough proof for me. Not exactly that secret nor a crime to classify as a conspiracy.

The people only know when they don’t like things after it happens…they’re not always able to put their fingers on why nor do they necessarily pay attention.

What's that quote by Churchill that goes something like: in any given conflict only 2% know what's really going on...most of the people never even knew what happened?

alnorth
06-28-2006, 06:10 PM
I see a lot of complaining on this and the immigration issue with no real change, in fact a resistance to change. Nothing but a BS amnesty plan which is not what the people seem to want. Care to explain?

If the majority is too lazy or apathetic to act on their opinion, then tough. Its up to you to convince and/or motivate your neighbors.

When the people do not demand the repeal of NAFTA, they either agree with it, dont care, or are basically saying "we dont agree, but eh... its fine. I have more important issues to vote on."

If you feel this way why are you resistant to talking about NAFTA by the people, making known how NAFTA really plays out or what some vested interests are pushing under the radar.

I am opposed to discussing NAFTA? Says who?

What I am opposed to are ignorant or dishonest authors spreading lies and hysteria in the press without being called out on it.

I return once again to WTO. You argued that NAFTA is different because it is a treaty and therefore carries the full force of the constitution, require 2/3 of the Senate to change. You were wrong.

We are now back to the basic question of, if NAFTA is so horrible, why are we not equally pissed about WTO? I suspect it is because of the irritation with illegal aliens flaunting our laws across the border, and Mexico was a part of NAFTA.

If NAFTA was between the US, Canada, and.... oh, Japan, I dont think anyone would give a rat's ass, same as the WTO, which has directly forced us into more change we didnt want than NAFTA ever has.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2006, 06:36 PM
If the majority is too lazy or apathetic to act on their opinion, then tough. Its up to you to convince and/or motivate your neighbors.
Well that's what I'm doing.
I have not bought into the dissembling of gov't officials, politicians, Greens, and Keynesian economists of the left.

I am opposed to discussing NAFTA? Says who?
You seemed to dismiss it as falling into Illuminati conspiracy theories.
That to me is a diversion.

What I am opposed to are ignorant or dishonest authors spreading lies and hysteria in the press without being called out on it.
In your opinion. There was a lot of arm twisting and greasing palms, just as there was with CAFTA to get it passed. There are also intelligent educated authors who say those who pushed it are the one's lying.

Example: Calling a trade agreement a "treaty."
It's actually operating as a treaty does.

Example: Calling it free trade when it 's protectionist,and loaded with subsidies etc. The biggest free-traders are the right libertarians like Lew Rockwell and Mises Institute who have posted highly intelligent and well reasoned arguments on how it is NOT free trade but command economy govt managed trade.

I return once again to WTO. You argued that NAFTA is different because it is a treaty and therefore carries the full force of the constitution, require 2/3 of the Senate to change. You were wrong.

But it is acting like a treaty on a defacto basis.

A formal "agreement" or contract between sovereign states is always a treaty, according to the dictonary.

Treaty. What Treaty? (http://www.mises.com/misesreview_detail.asp?control=9&sortorder=issue) Libertarian

Does NAFTA override the Constitution (http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/feb04/04-02-18.html) Conservative

Is NAFTA really Law now (http://nas.ucdavis.edu/Forbes/nafta.html)
?? Don't know what ideology this one is...I just agree with it on this point, not on his solution which sounds left.

We are now back to the basic question of, if NAFTA is so horrible, why are we not equally pissed about WTO? I suspect it is because of the irritation with illegal aliens flaunting our laws across the border, and Mexico was a part of NAFTA.

If NAFTA was between the US, Canada, and.... oh, Japan, I dont think anyone would give a rat's ass, same as the WTO, which has directly forced us into more change we didnt want than NAFTA ever has.
Well I am against that too but that's not what this thread is about.
I'm against erosion of US sovereignty. I am not against true free trade.

From NAFTA to Superstate (http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=163)

There's loads of articles on this site by one of the greatest free-market economists of our era on the scam of free-trade that NAFTA really is.

htismaqe
06-29-2006, 07:52 AM
We are the government.

If our representatives decide NAFTA is a good idea, then by extention, the people of the united states believe it is a good idea, and those who believe NAFTA should end are in the minority.

If the people and the congress are in direct conflict, that disagreement will be quickly remedied sooner than you can say "Dubai Ports Deal", or at least within a few elections.

The Dubai port deal wasn't critical for the maintenance of our governmental bureaucracy.

It's obvious we don't agree, so I'll just leave it at that.

Brock
06-29-2006, 11:36 AM
We are the government.

If our representatives decide NAFTA is a good idea, then by extention, the people of the united states believe it is a good idea, and those who believe NAFTA should end are in the minority.

That's a pretty ridiculous statement right there.

alnorth
06-29-2006, 04:47 PM
That's a pretty ridiculous statement right there.

In a representative Republic, it is the fundamental building block of the country. Sooner or later, congress is always doing the will of the people, period.

If the people do not vote them out of office, then they are agreeing with their action by default. Opinions are irrelevant, only the results at the ballot box matter. We can not have a direct Democracy with 500 nationwide polls per year on every little issue.

If you do not agree with that system of government, I suggest you start a 2nd American Revolution, leave the country, or cope.

go bowe
06-29-2006, 08:01 PM
Hey go blow... you obviously follow a loose construction (liberal) of the Constitution which I do NOT support. This thread is not intended to go in that direction, a direction where a conservative/liberatarian such as myself will never come to terms with a modern liberal and on which I do not have the time. But I'd appreciate you're sticking to points instead of insults and name calling. K?gfy...

your a fricking moonbat...

you suck fudge from the popsickle stick...

and last time i checked, this is a public bb...

so, gfy again... :p :p :p

go bowe
06-29-2006, 08:03 PM
:shrug: I'm confused. Did you call her a constitution? Or did you say that she was specific and enumerated?i think it was the enumerated part... :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

htismaqe
06-30-2006, 08:07 AM
In a representative Republic, it is the fundamental building block of the country. Sooner or later, congress is always doing the will of the people, period.

If the people do not vote them out of office, then they are agreeing with their action by default. Opinions are irrelevant, only the results at the ballot box matter. We can not have a direct Democracy with 500 nationwide polls per year on every little issue.

If you do not agree with that system of government, I suggest you start a 2nd American Revolution, leave the country, or cope.

There's nothing incorrect with your statement at all.

The governmental bureaucracy knows this as well. That's why we have such a well-develop social and corporate welfare system. It keeps people fat and happy -- and AWAY FROM THE POLLS.

banyon
06-30-2006, 08:29 AM
In a representative Republic, it is the fundamental building block of the country. Sooner or later, congress is always doing the will of the people, period.

Wow. Have you seen what Congress's priorities were this week?

Yep. the will of the American people is that we debate this flag burning issues. It's really important since it happens so frequently.

http://media.gallup.com/POLL/Releases/pr060110bi.gif

http://poll.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=14338

These are the American people's priorities. Congress hasn't done dick about any of these issues (save getting us into Iraq) for about forever.

The fact that incompetence/corruption rates so high is truly telling.