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

"clip" what will those canuckleheads think of next

QUESTION

Well-known member
Now i understand what you want in a free trade deal. One that you can change anytime it doesn't fit your needs can be changed so Only the US benefits. And the dispute board manned by US delegates only. Ok have you heard of conflict of interest. And by the way that would not be a free trade deal, that would be piracy. The US cannot play Calvinball on trade issues. Other groups may have failed but, remember R-CALF has a lower court montana judge :wink: in it's pocket you know the one that stopped those evil canadian cattle from coming in. In the interest of Safety :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: . So try it in his court and you will get to the supreme court. Then lose at that level.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
MoGal said:
Why is it so hard to understand that BEEF sold to the CONSUMER here in teh USA now has to be labeled as to country.

It is already law that any beef coming into the country has to be labeled by country of origin (boxed ) or has to have a brand on it if its live.............. NOTHING HAS CHANGED.............
the only changes are that now the PACKER cannot remove the country of origin label and throw it away...... they must keep the label with it so that when it goes to a USA grocery store it has to have the cool label on it so the butcher knows what country its from so that the USA CONSUMER can make a choice of what country beef they buy.

Yep-- If its in order to get the border opened so they can ride on the US cattlemans shirttails, they'll agree to anything-brands,tags, manifests whatever--and not dispute the law...Just like dropping the 10+ year trade barrier they had on US cattle- when they set the NAFTA precedent by calling "ALL US CATTLE DISEASED"-- but now when US Consumers ask they be told the entire truth of the product they eat-- so Canadians have to actually compete with PRODUCT OF USA- born, raised, and slaughtered-- they start crying and whining NAFTA, GATT, WTO, UN, CLU, NAACP and all the other Socialist words that they have sold their country out to in the name of greed- for fear their product can't compete........ :(

Most the civilized countries of the world already have COOL and have had for years-- except the whiney Canucks think they can't compete-- and want to stick all the same Mandatory ID that they got shoved down their throat by the Multinationals.....Bunch of B.S.

Sad when a bunch of folks I used to think of as honorable country folk refuse to go along with a plan to tell people the truth-- and would rather use deception, deceit and fraud so they can market their product...... :( :cry: :mad:
 

Kato

Well-known member
Sad when a bunch of folks I used to think of as honorable country folk refuse to go along with a plan to tell people the truth-- and would rather use deception, deceit and fraud so they can market their product.....

Back at ya. :wink: :wink:

Maybe there are some up here who've been studying the RCalf handbook eh? :D :D :D

This is not about marketing Canadian beef either. It's about having live Canadian cattle prices depressed even more by the way this is implemented. To add insult to injury, to have them depressed even more to the benefit of the very companies that report to head office south of the border. The old captive market again. :? If this wasn't going to cost us a lot of money on the live cattle, we'd all be standing side by side cheering MCOOL on. :clap: :clap: It's a marketing tool we'd love to use.

BTW, it's the hog producers who are the main driving force behind all of this. They've got a bigger stake in it than even we do. I guess we'll let the court decide, and then if the result is not what you guys like, you can start a counter suit.

We all know how it works. We've seen it so many times before. :roll: :roll: :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
Other groups may have failed but, remember R-CALF has a lower court montana judge in it's pocket you know the one that stopped those evil canadian cattle from coming in.

USDA had nothing to do with stopping cattle from coming across the border?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Kato said:
Sad when a bunch of folks I used to think of as honorable country folk refuse to go along with a plan to tell people the truth-- and would rather use deception, deceit and fraud so they can market their product.....

Back at ya. :wink: :wink:

Maybe there are some up here who've been studying the RCalf handbook eh? :D :D :D

This is not about marketing Canadian beef either. It's about having live Canadian cattle prices depressed even more by the way this is implemented. To add insult to injury, to have them depressed even more to the benefit of the very companies that report to head office south of the border. The old captive market again. :? If this wasn't going to cost us a lot of money on the live cattle, we'd all be standing side by side cheering MCOOL on. :clap: :clap: It's a marketing tool we'd love to use.

BTW, it's the hog producers who are the main driving force behind all of this. They've got a bigger stake in it than even we do. I guess we'll let the court decide, and then if the result is not what you guys like, you can start a counter suit.

We all know how it works. We've seen it so many times before. :roll: :roll: :roll:



If your product (cattle) are worth the price-- someone will pay it...I don't know how labeling it will cost you (unless consumers prefer to buy USA, like I think they will)...Especially now since packer space seems not to be an issue- since some of your new Packing Companies are already closing....

Sadly- what your saying in effect is you want to and feel its OK to- lie to, deceive, and defraud US consumers- as long as you can put more money in your pocket... :shock: :roll: :( :( :(
Kind of reminds me of the same justification many criminals I've dealt with over the years have......
 

Kato

Well-known member
No, what I'm saying is that this is the opinion held by many regarding rcalf and their tactic of lieing and deceiving the consumer about the so called dangers of Canadian beef just so they can put more money in their pockets. :shock: :roll: :( :( :(

It's not the labelling that will cost money. It's the discount on the live cattle! (aka not tarrif trade barrier)
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Now i understand what you want in a free trade deal. One that you can change anytime it doesn't fit your needs can be changed so Only the US benefits. And the dispute board manned by US delegates only. Ok have you heard of conflict of interest. And by the way that would not be a free trade deal, that would be piracy. The US cannot play Calvinball on trade issues. Other groups may have failed but, remember R-CALF has a lower court montana judge :wink: in it's pocket you know the one that stopped those evil canadian cattle from coming in. In the interest of Safety :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: . So try it in his court and you will get to the supreme court. Then lose at that level.

Nonsense. What we have to have in trade agreements is none of the BS where a panel can override the laws established by the member countries - that means your country, too.

Set aside the legal ramifications and look at the big picture. Our lawmakers consider many things when writing laws. They look at costs, what is affected positively, what is affected negetively, all the synergies involved. Many things are weighed. The trade boards look at the issue from only ONE aspect - trade, so you give the board the most power?

Then realize that the heart of a Democratic system of government lies in the fact that we choose who makes our laws. The WTO and NAFTA panels are not elected - we don't even know who they are. They're even citizens of a different country. Yet, we are allowing them to effectively legislate.

I don't understand how a rational person can support and defend such system. It is completely bass-ackwards and violates the spirit of representative government.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
The reason for an unelected peoson on a trade disput panel is to prevent bias and politics in decisions. But i undersdand why you want bias Sand H. The fact is these trade agreements delegates from every country are given powers by the particullar counrty's leader be it a president or prime minister or chancellor. The trade delegates doing the negociations are supposed to see the ramifications as well, so that is a moot point and as far as i see it a contract is a contract and if the US wants to renegociate the President has to ask and everyone involved has to agree to ammend any FTA. That is the only way a contract is renegociated. Either that or a time limit should have been set in stone as to if and when a trade agreement expires. Oops the US forgot to get a short term agreement. The problem as i see it is that the US negociated the deal when the canadian dollar was at 60 % of the US dollar not 95 % and never expected it to change. Tiny oversight. At the end of the day the NAFTA deal was signed by the Canadian Prime Minister and the Presidents of Mexico and the US of the time. Are you saying these leaders have no right to make decisons for their countries.
Ot could you quit liuving in the past and asking for it to be changed, that can't be done and complaining about the past accomplishes nothing. So get over it already.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Q, "The reason for an unelected peoson on a trade disput panel is to prevent bias and politics in decisions."

If that was their only duty, that would be fine. However, when that panel is vetoing laws enacted by representive government, they are doing much more than what you claim, they are legislating. You need to wake up and see things for what they actually are, Q.

Q, "Are you saying these leaders have no right to make decisons for their countries."

No, I am not. What I am saying is that there are things that our president and congress can and can not legally do.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Do they go into you legislature and vote- no. What they do is when a trade dispute arizes they say who is in the wrong. They don't propose laws that violate trade agreements they just point out when it happens. As far as your representive alledgedly contraveining your constitution maybe send people to negociate FTA that know your laws next time . The contract is signed.
 

don

Well-known member
sh: No, I am not. What I am saying is that there are things that our president and congress can and can not legally do.

and i guess that's substantiated by your own opinion but it doesn't seem any tested legal opinions are backing you up. you can keep spouting this but it is getting pretty lame.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Q, "Do they go into you legislature and vote- no."

When they cay what laws can stand and what can't, they're legislating. Sugar coat it all you want, but that is what it boils down to.

Q, "The contract is signed."

Fine. I just signed a contract that obligates you to sell all your calves to my buddy for $20/head delivered. He wants them Sept. 1. The contract is signed. It's the exact same deal as you're defending, so he'll plan on seeing those trucks on the morning of the first.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Sand H the NAFTA dispute board does not go into your federal Congess or senate and make any proposal on what should be US law. The fact is in the first ten years after Nafta ( signed by your president ) it was going you way the US wanted, US companies got to come in and pilage our natural resorces that is why so many oil exec's in calgary are ex-pats of the US, and that is why the forestry industry is dominated by US companies and why the US packers took over the packing industry in Canada and why it was more efficent to sent feeder cattle to the US. BSE changed that and after afew years of scambling and selling cull cows for $100Can that was $72 /head at the begining of BSE. We are just starting to recover as Canadian cattlemen not to mention we missed a entire upside of the cattle cycle.
The problem is that what you trying to say isn't a fair comparison. My prime minister signed NAFTA and as a canadian citizen i accepted it just as you have to accept it because your president of the time signed it. Cnotarct signed. So saying you personally didn't endorse it argument holds no water. As far as your proposed cattle deal the problem is my calves are not yours to sell. I know what you said is partially true, your buddy will want every canadian born calf he can get his hand on they will feed and grade well that is no suprise to me.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Q, "Sand H the NAFTA dispute board does not go into your federal Congess or senate and make any proposal on what should be US law."

The don't have to, they have veto power. That is exactly what CLIP is trying to do - have an unelected unrepresentative board that includes foreigners veto legislation passed by elected representatives.

Q, " As far as your proposed cattle deal the problem is my calves are not yours to sell"

BINGO, and Congressional power is not theirs nor the President's to cede.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
The problem with your agrument is timing if Nafta hadn't been signed i can see where you would have an argument but waiting until now so many years after it was signed is just muddying the water. The fact is that your legislators should know the trade rules and not pass laws after the fact trying to surcomvent them. And that is exactly what is going on here they are trying to pass a bill that ignores a previous trade deal. And if they can get away with that it sets a precedent. And why shouldn't Russia say they are taking alaska back because they don't like the deal anymore.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
The problem with your agrument is timing if Nafta hadn't been signed i can see where you would have an argument but waiting until now so many years after it was signed is just muddying the water. The fact is that your legislators should know the trade rules and not pass laws after the fact trying to surcomvent them. And that is exactly what is going on here they are trying to pass a bill that ignores a previous trade deal. And if they can get away with that it sets a precedent. And why shouldn't Russia say they are taking alaska back because they don't like the deal anymore.

If you can show me that Russian laws were broken in the sale, maybe you have something.

I'll say it again; any contract that was signed by somebody not authorized to sign is invalid. The President signing a document giving a foreign entity powers constitutionally endowed on Congress fits that discription.

Are those CLIP guys taking donations? I just might send them some cash so this gets brought up to people's attention down here. This ranks right with NAFTA saying we had to let POS Mexican trucks on our roads even though they couldn't pass our safety and emission standards.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
The USA bought Alaska from the USSR and the Ukraine was part of the USSR at that time, but no one there signed the deal that sold the property yet they were part of the communist counrty so shouldn't they have had to sign off on the agreement so does that mean Ukraine can take back Alaska.
The congress is trying to circumvent a exsisting deal. They should know of the rules. And that a deal was signed that congress can't undo. Why was there no such agrument when NAFTA was being negociated if the NAFTA messed with the US constitution. The answer is simple it does not change anything in your constituion . Maybe take this as a lesson learned make FTA short term so periodically they can be ammended so the US can always have their cake and eat it too. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Q, "The USA bought Alaska from the USSR and the Ukraine was part of the USSR at that time"

You're wrong. We bought Alaska from Russia long before the USSR was formed.

I'm tired of this. Send your dollars to CLIP. Lets get this thing out in the light of day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The major Constitutional question that NAFTA raises is whether it is a treaty or not...I don't think this question has ever been addressed by the Supreme Court....
Under the constitutionally-mandated procedures governing treaty ratification, treaties must be approved by a two-thirds supermajority of the the United States Senate...Neither NAFTA nor the WTO agreement ever was....
There have been District and Appellate cases that have went both ways- but the Supreme Court has not decided it....True Constitutionalists believe NAFTA and WTO are unconstitutional....

This is an abstract the Harvard Law Review has prepared concerning where it sets:
Abstract
Article 2, section 2 of the Constitution requires treaties to be approved by two thirds of the Senate. But many international accords, including the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization, are approved as congressional-executive agreements by simple majorities of both Houses. This is a modern development, departing radically from the constitutional practice of the first 150 years of the Republic. The congressional-executive agreement arose as part of the constitutional revolution of the Roosevelt years. Using the transformative techniques developed during the conflict between the New Deal and the Old Court in the 1930s, the President and House of Representatives gained the consent of the Senate to a revision of the foreign affairs power in the aftermath of the Second World War. The end of Roosevelt's fourth term saw the dawn of the modern Constitution - in which President and Congress have the authority to commit the nation on any important matter of domestic or foreign policy. Ackerman and Golove's story challenges originalist accounts that suppose the Treaty Clause to have a plain meaning that cannot be altered without formal amendment. It also challenges theories that suppose that the last war to generate a major constitutional change ended in 1865. And yet, the processes of twentieth-century transformation can be ignored only by mystifying the ways in which modern Americans exercise their popular sovereignty.

There also arises a question under Chapter 11 of NAFTA- that may end up being challenged on whether the President or Congress has the Constitutional authority to sign away a states/persons/corporates legal standing to a foreign entity or sovereignty (NAFTA , WTO).....
 

Latest posts

Top