A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandhusker-- it appears as tho some Congressmen got reminded that NAFTA is not a "treaty"--but only a law-- that can be altered or removed with amendments or another law..... :wink: :lol:
WND reported last week Cornyn's offer of a side-by-side amendment to defeat an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to remove funding from the Fiscal Year 2008 Department of Transportation appropriations bill for the department's trucking demonstration project to allow Mexican trucks on U.S. highways.
During the debate, Cornyn offered a mistaken argument from the Senate floor that the U.S. had a "treaty obligation" under the North American Free Trade Act to allow Mexican trucks into the U.S.
The Senate never passed NAFTA as a treaty. Lacking the two-thirds vote needed for passage of a treaty in the Senate, President Clinton submitted NAFTA to Congress as a law.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57672
Under United States law it is classed as a congressional-executive agreement rather than a treaty, reflecting a peculiar sense of the term "treaty" in United States constitutional law that is not followed by international law or the laws of other nations....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
Government-managed trade, not free trade
Milton Friedman (Nobel Prize winning economist and former Reagan advisor) has argued that the North American Free Trade Agreement is actually not a "free trade" agreement, but rather is government managed trade. The essence of this criticism is that such trade agreements don't promote free trade, they inhibit it by implementing another level of bureaucracy on top of national governments. This can not only have a detrimental effect on trade, it results in an erosion of sovereignty for all nations involved and causes citizens and governments to be bound by decisions made by an unelected international body.