• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Another O'Donnell Tape

A

Anonymous

Guest
This might fly in tent revival country - but Delaware seems to me a state of quite a population of educated folks- and I'll bet they are getting a good chuckle over this....

Some of these Tea Party candidates would like to take the country back 150 years.... :(


O'Donnell in 1998: 'Evolution is a myth'
By:
CNN's Jeff Simon


(CNN) – Keeping to his promise that he would release a controversial video clip of Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell every week until she appears on his television show, liberal comedian Bill Maher unveiled another clip of the Tea Party favorite on Friday.

In the latest clip, culled from a 1998 episode of Maher’s old show “Politically Incorrect,” O’Donnell is shown vehemently asserting that “evolution is a myth.”

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/09/25/realtime.odonnell.1998.cnn

A stupefied Maher asks, “Have you ever looked at a monkey?” to which O’Donnell replies, “Well then...why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?”


Maher aired the clip on his current HBO show, "Real Time with Bill Maher."

The latest clip comes days after video of O’Donnell surfaced showing the candidate in 2003 claiming its possible to stop Americans from having sex.

And last week, Maher released a clip that featured O’Donnell in 1999 saying that in high school she “dabbled into witchcraft.”

O’Donnell’s campaign has dismissed the previous clips as distractions.

According to a CNN/Time/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday, Democratic Senate nominee Chris Coons holds a 16 percentage point lead over O’Donnell among likely voters, 55 percent to 39 percent. Among the wider pool of registered voters, Coons leads O'Donnell by 25 points.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Why don't you stop and think about what you look like when you continue to live up to the Dems Play book of campaign strategy. Distract, Demonize and run.

How about we discuss some of the Dems bills that the majority of voters agree with. :wink:

I will guarantee it will be short enough to even keep your attention as they have not one policy they can run on after two years of control. :wink: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep-- Tam- it does not surprise me with you as a Tea Party supporter- with this being an example of the type candidates the Tea Party is digging up- to want to change the subject.... :wink: :p :lol:


Altho it surprises me that you- the NAFTA flagwaver queen- would support the Tea Party :???:

The Tea Party Pledge (sign below)

We, the undersigned, pledge to vote only for sound candidates regardless of their party. We seek traditional candidates who favor an anti-globalist, America-First platform. We shall only vote for a candidate who:

(1) Supports reductions in legal immigration; favors attrition policies, ending birthright citizenship and terminating chain migration; and opposes amnesty and illegal immigration. (Both legal and illegal immigration are driving down American wages and undermining traditional demographics.)

(2) Supports America First economic policies and opposes free trade (e.g. NAFTA, et al.), which is destroying the American economy. (Historically conservatives opposed free trade, a globalist practice that Karl Marx himself supported.)
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
While no one questions that there have been evolution within a species, there is no evidence that any species evolved into another.
So, anything more than that is just speculation.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
Evolution is indeed a myth.
Show me scientific PROOF it has happened. Saying the dinosaurs and fossil remains is proof....NO that is only a hypothesis.

How is that taking the country back 150 years? It is saying nothing has been PROVED in evolution.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- Tam- it does not surprise me with you as a Tea Party supporter- with this being an example of the type candidates the Tea Party is digging up- to want to change the subject.... :wink: :p :lol:


Altho it surprises me that you- the NAFTA flagwaver queen- would support the Tea Party :???:
Advantages of NAFTA
By Kimberly Amadeo,

What Are the Advantages of NAFTA?:
NAFTA created the world’s largest free trade area, linking 444 million people and producing $17 trillion in goods and services annually. Estimates are that NAFTA increases U.S. GDP by as much as .5% a year.

That's because it eliminates tariffs and creates agreements on international rights for business investors. This reduces the cost of trade, which spurs investment and growth especially for small businesses. Eliminating tariffs also reduces inflation by decreasing the costs of imports.

Increased Trade:
Trade between the NAFTA signatories tripled, from $297 billion in 1993 to $1 trillion in 2007 (latest data available). Exports from the U.S. to Canada and Mexico grew from $142 billion to $452 billion.Exports from Canada and Mexico to the U.S. increased from $151 billion to $568 billion.One reason trade grew because NAFTA provided the ability for firms in member countries to bid on government contracts. It also protected intellectual properties.
Boosted U.S. Farm Exports:
NAFTA increased farm exports because it eliminated high Mexican tariffs. Mexico is the top export destination for beef, rice, soybean meal, corn sweeteners, apples and beans. It is the second largest for corn, soybeans and oils. As a result of NAFTA, the percent of U.S. agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico has grown from 22% in 1993 to 30% in 2007. (Source: USTR, NAFTA Facts, March 2008)
Created Trade Surplus in Services:
More than 40% of U.S. GDP is services, such as financial services and health care. These aren't easily transported, so being able to export them to nearby countries is important. NAFTA boosted U.S. service exports to Canada and Mexico from $25 billion in 1993 to $106.8 billion in 2007 (latest data available). Service exports were $40 billion.

NAFTA eliminated trade barriers in nearly all service sectors, which are often highly regulated. NAFTA requires governments to publish all regulations, lowering hidden costs of doing business.

Reduced Oil and Grocery Prices:
The U.S. imported $157.8 billion in oil from Mexico and Canada (shale oil).This also reduces U.S. reliance on oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela. It is especially important now that the U.S. no longer imports oil from . Why? Mexico is a friendly country, whereas Venezuela's president often criticizes the U.S. Both Venezuela and Iran have started selling oil in currencies other than the dollar, contributing to the decline in the dollar's value.

Since NAFTA eliminates tariffs, oil prices are lower. The same is true for food imports, which totaled $28.9 billion in 2008.

Stepped Up Foreign Direct Investment:
Since NAFTA was enacted, U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada and Mexico more than tripled to $348.7 billion (as of 2007, latest data available). Canadian and Mexican FDI in the U.S. grew to $219.2 billion.

NAFTA reduces investors' risk by guaranteeing they will have the same legal rights as local investors. Through NAFTA, investors can make legal claims against the government if it nationalizes their industry or takes their property by eminent domain. (Source: USTR, NAFTA Section Index) (Updated December 21, 2009)
BOO HOO Oldtimer NAFTA sure destroyed the US by the looks of it. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- Tam- it does not surprise me with you as a Tea Party supporter- with this being an example of the type candidates the Tea Party is digging up- to want to change the subject.... :wink: :p :lol:


Altho it surprises me that you- the NAFTA flagwaver queen- would support the Tea Party :???:
Advantages of NAFTA
By Kimberly Amadeo,

What Are the Advantages of NAFTA?:
NAFTA created the world’s largest free trade area, linking 444 million people and producing $17 trillion in goods and services annually. Estimates are that NAFTA increases U.S. GDP by as much as .5% a year.

That's because it eliminates tariffs and creates agreements on international rights for business investors. This reduces the cost of trade, which spurs investment and growth especially for small businesses. Eliminating tariffs also reduces inflation by decreasing the costs of imports.

Increased Trade:
Trade between the NAFTA signatories tripled, from $297 billion in 1993 to $1 trillion in 2007 (latest data available). Exports from the U.S. to Canada and Mexico grew from $142 billion to $452 billion.Exports from Canada and Mexico to the U.S. increased from $151 billion to $568 billion.One reason trade grew because NAFTA provided the ability for firms in member countries to bid on government contracts. It also protected intellectual properties.
Boosted U.S. Farm Exports:
NAFTA increased farm exports because it eliminated high Mexican tariffs. Mexico is the top export destination for beef, rice, soybean meal, corn sweeteners, apples and beans. It is the second largest for corn, soybeans and oils. As a result of NAFTA, the percent of U.S. agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico has grown from 22% in 1993 to 30% in 2007. (Source: USTR, NAFTA Facts, March 2008)
Created Trade Surplus in Services:
More than 40% of U.S. GDP is services, such as financial services and health care. These aren't easily transported, so being able to export them to nearby countries is important. NAFTA boosted U.S. service exports to Canada and Mexico from $25 billion in 1993 to $106.8 billion in 2007 (latest data available). Service exports were $40 billion.

NAFTA eliminated trade barriers in nearly all service sectors, which are often highly regulated. NAFTA requires governments to publish all regulations, lowering hidden costs of doing business.

Reduced Oil and Grocery Prices:
The U.S. imported $157.8 billion in oil from Mexico and Canada (shale oil).This also reduces U.S. reliance on oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela. It is especially important now that the U.S. no longer imports oil from . Why? Mexico is a friendly country, whereas Venezuela's president often criticizes the U.S. Both Venezuela and Iran have started selling oil in currencies other than the dollar, contributing to the decline in the dollar's value.

Since NAFTA eliminates tariffs, oil prices are lower. The same is true for food imports, which totaled $28.9 billion in 2008.

Stepped Up Foreign Direct Investment:
Since NAFTA was enacted, U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada and Mexico more than tripled to $348.7 billion (as of 2007, latest data available). Canadian and Mexican FDI in the U.S. grew to $219.2 billion.

NAFTA reduces investors' risk by guaranteeing they will have the same legal rights as local investors. Through NAFTA, investors can make legal claims against the government if it nationalizes their industry or takes their property by eminent domain. (Source: USTR, NAFTA Section Index) (Updated December 21, 2009)
BOO HOO Oldtimer NAFTA sure destroyed the US by the looks of it. :roll:

Well apparently the Tea Party folks don't believe its been any good...And add them to the true old conservatives that have always opposed it because of the sovereignty it gives up- and the many Dem working class and union folks that oppose it-- and it appears there is more of a movement to do away with FTA's than I before envisioned...

Heres a couple more Tea Party stances- that if followed- would throw out NAFTA, since it is unconstitutional as it was never ratified under treaty requirements...

It just surprises me you agree with and support this movement :???:


We advocate smaller government, a government that serves us only with those purposes expressly stated in the Constitution.
We advocate less spending, a balanced budget, more states’ rights, & a free market.We are educating voters to choose candidates that are dedicated to upholding the Constitution and the ideologies that have made our nation great for over 100 years.

www.tempo-mt.com

To fight against any measure that subverts U.S. sovereignty, whether through trade, currency, environmental causes, the United Nations, immigration amnesty, or under the guise of human rights.
 

Tam

Well-known member
As far as the evolution issue Oldtimer. You are the prime example that evolution doesn't always work. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MsSage said:
Evolution is indeed a myth.
Show me scientific PROOF it has happened. Saying the dinosaurs and fossil remains is proof....NO that is only a hypothesis.

How is that taking the country back 150 years? It is saying nothing has been PROVED in evolution.

Yep like I said--This might fly in tent revival country - but Delaware seems to me a state of quite a population of educated folks where I don't think they'll buy it...

Appears to me that many of the Tea Party supporters would like nothing better than to have the country go backwards to the 1920's and the days of the Scopes Monkey trials, bookbanning, and the censorship/outlawing of anything they don't understand.... :roll: :(
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Yep-- Tam- it does not surprise me with you as a Tea Party supporter- with this being an example of the type candidates the Tea Party is digging up- to want to change the subject.... :wink: :p :lol:


Altho it surprises me that you- the NAFTA flagwaver queen- would support the Tea Party :???:
Advantages of NAFTA
By Kimberly Amadeo,

What Are the Advantages of NAFTA?:
NAFTA created the world’s largest free trade area, linking 444 million people and producing $17 trillion in goods and services annually. Estimates are that NAFTA increases U.S. GDP by as much as .5% a year.

That's because it eliminates tariffs and creates agreements on international rights for business investors. This reduces the cost of trade, which spurs investment and growth especially for small businesses. Eliminating tariffs also reduces inflation by decreasing the costs of imports.

Increased Trade:
Trade between the NAFTA signatories tripled, from $297 billion in 1993 to $1 trillion in 2007 (latest data available). Exports from the U.S. to Canada and Mexico grew from $142 billion to $452 billion.Exports from Canada and Mexico to the U.S. increased from $151 billion to $568 billion.One reason trade grew because NAFTA provided the ability for firms in member countries to bid on government contracts. It also protected intellectual properties.
Boosted U.S. Farm Exports:
NAFTA increased farm exports because it eliminated high Mexican tariffs. Mexico is the top export destination for beef, rice, soybean meal, corn sweeteners, apples and beans. It is the second largest for corn, soybeans and oils. As a result of NAFTA, the percent of U.S. agricultural exports to Canada and Mexico has grown from 22% in 1993 to 30% in 2007. (Source: USTR, NAFTA Facts, March 2008)
Created Trade Surplus in Services:
More than 40% of U.S. GDP is services, such as financial services and health care. These aren't easily transported, so being able to export them to nearby countries is important. NAFTA boosted U.S. service exports to Canada and Mexico from $25 billion in 1993 to $106.8 billion in 2007 (latest data available). Service exports were $40 billion.

NAFTA eliminated trade barriers in nearly all service sectors, which are often highly regulated. NAFTA requires governments to publish all regulations, lowering hidden costs of doing business.

Reduced Oil and Grocery Prices:
The U.S. imported $157.8 billion in oil from Mexico and Canada (shale oil).This also reduces U.S. reliance on oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela. It is especially important now that the U.S. no longer imports oil from . Why? Mexico is a friendly country, whereas Venezuela's president often criticizes the U.S. Both Venezuela and Iran have started selling oil in currencies other than the dollar, contributing to the decline in the dollar's value.

Since NAFTA eliminates tariffs, oil prices are lower. The same is true for food imports, which totaled $28.9 billion in 2008.

Stepped Up Foreign Direct Investment:
Since NAFTA was enacted, U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada and Mexico more than tripled to $348.7 billion (as of 2007, latest data available). Canadian and Mexican FDI in the U.S. grew to $219.2 billion.

NAFTA reduces investors' risk by guaranteeing they will have the same legal rights as local investors. Through NAFTA, investors can make legal claims against the government if it nationalizes their industry or takes their property by eminent domain. (Source: USTR, NAFTA Section Index) (Updated December 21, 2009)
BOO HOO Oldtimer NAFTA sure destroyed the US by the looks of it. :roll:

Well apparently the Tea Party folks don't believe its been any good...And add them to the true old conservatives that have always opposed it because of the sovereignty it gives up- and the many Dem working class and union folks that oppose it-- and it appears there is more of a movement to do away with FTA's than I before envisioned...

Heres a couple more Tea Party stances- that if followed- would throw out NAFTA, since it is unconstitutional as it was never ratified under treaty requirements...

It just surprises me you agree with and support this movement :???:


We advocate smaller government, a government that serves us only with those purposes expressly stated in the Constitution.
We advocate less spending, a balanced budget, more states’ rights, & a free market.We are educating voters to choose candidates that are dedicated to upholding the Constitution and the ideologies that have made our nation great for over 100 years.

www.tempo-mt.com

To fight against any measure that subverts U.S. sovereignty, whether through trade, currency, environmental causes, the United Nations, immigration amnesty, or under the guise of human rights.

Gee I thought you thought all Tea Baggers were nutcases :shock: I guess not. :?

Answer this Oldtimer. You say you hate NAFTA

House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994
The Dems controled the Senate in 1993/94 and Clinton sign NAFTA into law.

You say deregulation caused by the appeal of the Glass Steagall Act caused the So called Bush Bust.

The legislation to appeal the Glass Steagall Act was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.

Democrat President Bill Clinton signed the bill to Appeal Glass Steagall and inact NAFTA.

So I ask you How can you vote for and defend a party that was responsible for that? :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam
So I ask you How can you vote for and defend a party that was responsible for that?

I never voted for any party- nor belong to any party.... I didn't vote for Bill Clinton....

But the question was not about me Tam-- it was how can you support the Tea Party movement when much of it is supporting the old conservatives isolationist views- and the repeal of the unconstitutional free trade agreements (treaty's)... :???:
 

Mike

Well-known member
There are two widespread areas of disagreement among scientists.

Evolution and Climate Change.

For OT to insinuate that those that do not believe in evolution are less intelligent than those that do, is very unintelligent within itself.

In fact, there are many scientists that believe in "Creationism".

But that only makes OT look stupid, and we know that going in. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam
So I ask you How can you vote for and defend a party that was responsible for that?

I never voted for any party- nor belong to any party.... I didn't vote for Bill Clinton....

But the question was not about me Tam-- it was how can you support the Tea Party movement when much of it is supporting the old conservatives isolationist views- and the repeal of the unconstitutional free trade agreements (treaty's)... :???:

I only have your word for the repealing of NAFTA and EXCUSE me if I don't believe you Oldtimer as to many times when the REST OF THE STORY is told you have been proven to be lieing .

BTW I didn't say you voted for Clinton but you are defending the party he represented when he signed the two bills that you claim are the reason for most if not all of the US Troubles.

You also daily defend the actions of this guy.

Obama: NAFTA not so bad after all
The Democratic nominee, in an interview with Fortune, says he wants free trade "to work for all people."
By Nina Easton, Washington editor
Last Updated: June 18, 2008: 3:00 PM EDT

WASHINGTON (Fortune) -- The general campaign is on, independent voters are up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade.

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee backed off his harshest attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.
Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

Obama says he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that Obama-as the candidate noted in Fortune's interview-has not changed his core position on NAFTA, and that he has always said he would talk to the leaders of Canada and Mexico in an effort to include enforceable labor and environmental standards in the pact.

Nevertheless, Obama's tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.

The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party, with Obama generally following Hillary Clinton's lead in setting a protectionist tone.

In February, as the campaign moved into the Rust Belt, both candidates vowed to invoke a six-month opt-out clause ("as a hammer," in Obama's words) to pressure Canada and Mexico to make concessions.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper called that threat a mistake, and other leaders abroad expressed worries about their trade deals. Leading House Democrats, including Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, distanced themselves from the candidates.

Now, however, Obama says he doesn't believe in unilaterally reopening NAFTA. On the afternoon that I sat down with him to discuss the economy, Obama said he had just spoken with Harper, who had called to congratulate him on winning the nomination.

"I'm not a big believer in doing things unilaterally," Obama said. "I'm a big believer in opening up a dialogue and figuring out how we can make this work for all people."

Obama has repeatedly described himself as a free-trade proponent who wants to be a "better bargainer" on behalf of U.S. interests and wants agreements to include labor and environmental standards.

In May 2007, congressional Democrats and the Bush administration agreed to a plan to include environmental and international labor standards in upcoming trade agreements. Still, later that year Obama supported one agreement (Peru) and opposed three others (Panama, Colombia, South Korea). Labor leaders - many of whom backed Obama in the primary - were the chief opponents of those pacts.

Obama jumped into the anti-trade waters with Clinton even though his top economics adviser, the University of Chicago's Austan Goolsbee, has written that America's wage gap is primarily the result of a globalized information economy - not free trade.

On Feb. 8, Goolsbee met with the Canadian consul general in Chicago and offered assurances that Obama's rhetoric was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy," according to a Canadian memo summarizing the meeting that was obtained by Fortune. "In fact," the Canadian memo said, Goolsbee "mentioned that going forward the Obama camp was going to be careful to send the appropriate message without coming off as too protectionist."

In the Fortune interview, Obama noted that despite his support for opening markets, "there are costs to free trade" that must be recognized. He noted that under NAFTA, a more efficient U.S. agricultural industry displaced Mexican farmers, adding to the problem of illegal immigration.

We "can't pretend that those costs aren't real," Obama added. Otherwise, he added, it feeds "the protectionist sentiment and the anti-immigration sentiment that is out there in both parties."

Obama also reiterated his determination to be a tougher trade bargainer. "The Chinese love free trade," he said, "but they are tough as nails when it comes to a bargain, right? They will resist any calls to stop manipulating their currency. It's no secret they have consistently encroached on our intellectual property and our copyright laws. ...We should make sure in our trade negotiations that our interests and our values are adequately reflected."

Republican nominee John McCain, for his part, is emphasizing his consistent position as a free-trader. In a press conference in Boston this week, he attacked Obama as protectionist: "Senator Obama said that he would unilaterally - unilaterally! - renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, where 33 percent of our trade exists. And you know what message that sends? That no agreement is sacred if someone declares that as president of the United States they would unilaterally renegotiate it. I stand for free trade, and with all the difficulties and economic troubles we're in today, there's a real bright spot and that's our exports. Protectionism does not work."

NAFTA is not so bad, How do you live with yourself Oldtimer, Defending a party that has decieved you to get your support? :wink: :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam
So I ask you How can you vote for and defend a party that was responsible for that?

I never voted for any party- nor belong to any party.... I didn't vote for Bill Clinton....

But the question was not about me Tam-- it was how can you support the Tea Party movement when much of it is supporting the old conservatives isolationist views- and the repeal of the unconstitutional free trade agreements (treaty's)... :???:

Oldtimer is it not true that NAFTA went all the way to the Supreme Court and stood up to the unconstitutional challenge?

In 1992, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which established a "free trade zone" in North America. President Clinton never submitted this agreement as a treaty to the Senate for ratification. On December 8, 1993, Congress passed the NAFTA Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182 (1993), which effectuated the terms of NAFTA. This act passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 234 to 200 and the Senate by a vote of 61 to 38.

A group of labor organizations brought suit in federal court seeking to have NAFTA declared unconstitutional "as it was never approved by a two-thirds supermajority of the United States Senate pursuant to the constitutionally-mandated procedures governing treaty ratification." (5) The District Court ruled that the Constitution did not prohibit an agreement like NAFTA. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit of Appeals vacated the lower court's ruling on grounds that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question.

In the past, the Supreme Court has held that some issues should not be resolved on their merits because of separation of powers concerns that dictate noninvolvement on the part of the judiciary. The test for invocation of the "political question doctrine" is laid out in Baker v. Carr:

Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or (3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or (4) the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or (6) the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. (6)

In 1979, the Supreme Court was asked to address whether the president could, on his own, terminate American adherence to a treaty. The Supreme Court, in Goldwater v. Carter, held that the matter involved a political question, thus warranting nonintervention by the judiciary. The dispositive opinion, written by then--Associate Justice William Rehnquist, was only a plurality opinion. However, in a concurring opinion, Justice Lewis Powell condensed the Baker six-prong test into three simpler questions:

1. Does the issue involve resolution of questions committed by the text of the Constitution to a coordinate branch of government?

2. Would resolution of the question demand that a court move beyond areas of judicial expertise?

3. Do prudential considerations counsel against judicial intervention? (7)

The Eleventh Circuit, in Made in the USA Foundation v. United States, found Justice Powell's three-part test to be useful in assessing whether federal courts should address the merits of the claims raised in the NAFTA case. In answering the first question, the court concluded that the matter was committed to the political branches. Because the subject matter of NAFTA was within the domain of power granted to Congress in the Commerce Clause and to the president in his foreign affairs power, the court opined that

with respect to commercial agreements, ... the Constitution's clear assignment of authority to the political branches of the Government over our nation's foreign affairs and commerce counsels against the intrusive role for this court in overseeing the actions of the President and Congress in this matter. (8)

The court, addressing the second question, felt that judicial intervention would involve the courts in an area outside of its expertise:

In the area of foreign relations, prudential considerations militate even more strongly in favor of judicial noninterference. Furthermore, we believe that in requesting, as the appellants do, that this court adjudicate the "significance" of an international commercial agreement as the critical determinant of whether or not it constitutes a treaty requiring Senate ratification, we would be unavoidably thrust into making policy judgments of the sort unsuited for the judicial branch. (9)

Finally, the court, in applying Justice Powell's third test, held that several prudential factors cautioned against judicial involvement, "including (1) the necessity of federal uniformity; (2) the potential effect of an adverse judicial decision on the nation's economy and foreign relations; and (3) the respect courts should pay to coordinate branches of the federal government." (10)

Given that not just one but all three prongs of the Powell test counseled judicial abstinence, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it would be inappropriate to reach the merits of the appellants' legal claims. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. (11) Accordingly, the lower court dismissed the case--in effect allowing NAFTA to stand.

Now that we know NAFTA is Constitutional would you like to provide a link to where the Tea Party supports Repealing it on Unconstitutional grounds.
Personally I think you are confusing NAFTA with the TEA Parties support of repealing of the UNConstitutional Bill known as OBAMACARE. :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam
So I ask you How can you vote for and defend a party that was responsible for that?

I never voted for any party- nor belong to any party.... I didn't vote for Bill Clinton....

But the question was not about me Tam-- it was how can you support the Tea Party movement when much of it is supporting the old conservatives isolationist views- and the repeal of the unconstitutional free trade agreements (treaty's)... :???:

Oldtimer is it not true that NAFTA went all the way to the Supreme Court and stood up to the unconstitutional challenge?

In 1992, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which established a "free trade zone" in North America. President Clinton never submitted this agreement as a treaty to the Senate for ratification. On December 8, 1993, Congress passed the NAFTA Implementation Act, Public Law 103-182 (1993), which effectuated the terms of NAFTA. This act passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 234 to 200 and the Senate by a vote of 61 to 38.

A group of labor organizations brought suit in federal court seeking to have NAFTA declared unconstitutional "as it was never approved by a two-thirds supermajority of the United States Senate pursuant to the constitutionally-mandated procedures governing treaty ratification." (5) The District Court ruled that the Constitution did not prohibit an agreement like NAFTA. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit of Appeals vacated the lower court's ruling on grounds that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question.

In the past, the Supreme Court has held that some issues should not be resolved on their merits because of separation of powers concerns that dictate noninvolvement on the part of the judiciary. The test for invocation of the "political question doctrine" is laid out in Baker v. Carr:

Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found (1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or (3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; or (4) the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or (5) an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or (6) the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. (6)

In 1979, the Supreme Court was asked to address whether the president could, on his own, terminate American adherence to a treaty. The Supreme Court, in Goldwater v. Carter, held that the matter involved a political question, thus warranting nonintervention by the judiciary. The dispositive opinion, written by then--Associate Justice William Rehnquist, was only a plurality opinion. However, in a concurring opinion, Justice Lewis Powell condensed the Baker six-prong test into three simpler questions:

1. Does the issue involve resolution of questions committed by the text of the Constitution to a coordinate branch of government?

2. Would resolution of the question demand that a court move beyond areas of judicial expertise?

3. Do prudential considerations counsel against judicial intervention? (7)

The Eleventh Circuit, in Made in the USA Foundation v. United States, found Justice Powell's three-part test to be useful in assessing whether federal courts should address the merits of the claims raised in the NAFTA case. In answering the first question, the court concluded that the matter was committed to the political branches. Because the subject matter of NAFTA was within the domain of power granted to Congress in the Commerce Clause and to the president in his foreign affairs power, the court opined that

with respect to commercial agreements, ... the Constitution's clear assignment of authority to the political branches of the Government over our nation's foreign affairs and commerce counsels against the intrusive role for this court in overseeing the actions of the President and Congress in this matter. (8)

The court, addressing the second question, felt that judicial intervention would involve the courts in an area outside of its expertise:

In the area of foreign relations, prudential considerations militate even more strongly in favor of judicial noninterference. Furthermore, we believe that in requesting, as the appellants do, that this court adjudicate the "significance" of an international commercial agreement as the critical determinant of whether or not it constitutes a treaty requiring Senate ratification, we would be unavoidably thrust into making policy judgments of the sort unsuited for the judicial branch. (9)

Finally, the court, in applying Justice Powell's third test, held that several prudential factors cautioned against judicial involvement, "including (1) the necessity of federal uniformity; (2) the potential effect of an adverse judicial decision on the nation's economy and foreign relations; and (3) the respect courts should pay to coordinate branches of the federal government." (10)

Given that not just one but all three prongs of the Powell test counseled judicial abstinence, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that it would be inappropriate to reach the merits of the appellants' legal claims. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. (11) Accordingly, the lower court dismissed the case--in effect allowing NAFTA to stand.

Now that we know NAFTA is Constitutional would you like to provide a link to where the Tea Party supports Repealing it on Unconstitutional grounds.
Personally I think you are confusing NAFTA with the TEA Parties support of repealing of the UNConstitutional Bill known as OBAMACARE. :wink:

I don't believe the full issue of NAFTA has ever been heard by SCOTUS- and the fact that SCOTUS is not hearing many of these cases (like NAFTA and the Patriot Act)- and making decislons on them based on the Constitution is exactly what the Tea Party is screaming about...
Ruling on constitutionality- not political justification or the need for an adherence to a political decision....If you used those grounds- anything an Administration or a Congress did would be constitutional...

But just like the 1970 drug act- so much water has flowed under the bridge since its passage- that I doubt it will ever be heard or overthrown....Altho courts and SCOTUS follow the political tone- and if the Bush Bust economy leads to a major isolationist move (which it seems to be doing) then you may see the court take up the case....

The Roberts Court by far and the Rehnquist Court before that were very resistant to hearing issues and seldom heard appeals- and then when they did usually made rulings on minute parts of the law rather than the totallity of it... Judges say now with the current court- if the SCOTUS agrees to hear a case - there is a major chance they will overturn it at least in part...

Rehnquists Court was known as a "collaborative court" in that it mainly found ways to be agreeable with the political coalition controlling the other branches of the national government....It was also known to be a federalist court in that altho it made no major rulings giving the federal government more power- it chipped away with every ruling and did so....

Both courts were/are also known as "corporate courts" favoring corporations/industry/trade over workers issues and unions...
 

Tam

Well-known member
The District Court ruled that the Constitution did not prohibit an agreement like NAFTA and after it went all the way to the Supreme Court the case was dropped. So where is your proof it is Un-constitutional? Provide proof as in a court ruling or admit it is only unconstitutional because Judge Oldtimer thinks it is. :roll:

And since you like to bring up stuff from O'Donnells past to discredit her I thought I would bring a little something from the past and see if you would like to discuss it. After the Canadian cow was found in Washington with BSE this comment was made by ________________ (you fill in the blank Oldtimer)
"If there is a positive case again in the U.S., we as a beef producing nation shouldn't market beef in cattle older that 20 months".

hint he is a lawyer/rancher and is running in Montana for Congress. :wink:

Now answer this what party is he running under and what do you think would have happened to US beef producers if the USDA after they found the Texas cow would have lived up to this "want to be Congressman's" little suggestion?

You want to talk about O'Donnell in Delaware when you have this wingnut running right in great old Montana. Goodness knows what he will come up with if he gets to DC. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
You can't seem to get it thru your head- Tam- the failure of the Supreme Court to do any actions on issues they believe is outside the realm of Federal authority is what all the Tea Party/Patriot/Consitution groups are screaming about.....

A law is legal until overturned- but if the courts don't hear any cases and see where/if it fits into the Constitution - none will ever overturned...

Funny you brought up Dennis McDonald- I read an article on the Northern Ag Network where they compared him to Rehberg on Agriculture issues-- and it was something like 95% agreement between the two...

And many in the state/country thought that we should have tested ALL over twenty months- the same as they feel Canada who is continually finding infected cattle should have and still be testing all- until it was proven the disease no longer existed in the herds....

Whats it been now Tam 7+ years and none of our export markets have totally opened back up to us or Canada.....

Yep Dennis is an out of stater- comes from the home of fruits and nuts (but I haven't heard him say he practices witchcraft- or thinks he can outlaw all sex- or has been a spokesperson against masturbation- or thinks evolution is all a myth)- and just so you don't get any more worry lines- I'm not planning on voting for him- altho I can't/won't vote for the little rich boy Rehberg either mainly because of his putting sticking out of state lobbyiest money ahead of his home state constituents wishs....
 

redrobin

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
This might fly in tent revival country - but Delaware seems to me a state of quite a population of educated folks- and I'll bet they are getting a good chuckle over this....

Some of these Tea Party candidates would like to take the country back 150 years.... :(


O'Donnell in 1998: 'Evolution is a myth'
By:
CNN's Jeff Simon


(CNN) – Keeping to his promise that he would release a controversial video clip of Delaware GOP Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell every week until she appears on his television show, liberal comedian Bill Maher unveiled another clip of the Tea Party favorite on Friday.

In the latest clip, culled from a 1998 episode of Maher’s old show “Politically Incorrect,” O’Donnell is shown vehemently asserting that “evolution is a myth.”

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2010/09/25/realtime.odonnell.1998.cnn

A stupefied Maher asks, “Have you ever looked at a monkey?” to which O’Donnell replies, “Well then...why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?”


Maher aired the clip on his current HBO show, "Real Time with Bill Maher."

The latest clip comes days after video of O’Donnell surfaced showing the candidate in 2003 claiming its possible to stop Americans from having sex.

And last week, Maher released a clip that featured O’Donnell in 1999 saying that in high school she “dabbled into witchcraft.”

O’Donnell’s campaign has dismissed the previous clips as distractions.

According to a CNN/Time/Opinion Research Corporation poll released Wednesday, Democratic Senate nominee Chris Coons holds a 16 percentage point lead over O’Donnell among likely voters, 55 percent to 39 percent. Among the wider pool of registered voters, Coons leads O'Donnell by 25 points.
Oldtimer are you saying you believe the evolution theory and that you think her stance is uneducated because she believes evolution to be a myth? Clarify your position.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer are you saying you believe the evolution theory and that you think her stance is uneducated because she believes evolution to be a myth? Clarify your position.

I don't think the fat sumbiatch CAN clarify his position..

He flops around like a fish out of water and tries to hold both sides of an argument, and winds up lying with just about every post he makes.

He doesn't know evolution from a revolution. :roll:
 

jingo2

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oldtimer are you saying you believe the evolution theory and that you think her stance is uneducated because she believes evolution to be a myth? Clarify your position.

I don't think the fat sumbiatch CAN clarify his position..

He flops around like a fish out of water and tries to hold both sides of an argument, and winds up lying with just about every post he makes.

He doesn't know evolution from a revolution. :roll:



But you as an inbred, back woods woodscolt can?
 
Top