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

WTO Challenge.........

Help Support Ranchers.net:

NAFTA attempts to trump the Constitution via the panel that the agreement says has the authority to declare a law in violation AND THEN TAKE ACTION. If this was not so, why would you go to any place other than Congress to get our law tossed? You're going to a bunch of unelected foreigners to convince them that our law has to be changed or eliminated, when only Congress has the power to affect our laws - and you're doing it under the pretense of the agreement that says they can do it! They can't!

Basically, any trade agreement is just a gentleman's agreement, and there's no gentlemen in Congress. You can't take us to court unless we agree to because there is no Earth court with juristiction over the US. I don't know if Canada has a Constitution or not, but I would think your's would be similar. Thank God that we don't have a World Government or North American Government - yet, we are still a soverign nation.

I won't support NAFTA (that would include the US filing any suit against Canada under NAFTA) because I think an illegal contract can not and should not be honored by any parties, and when the contract contains a provision that gives powers expressly reserved to Congress to another entity, it becomes illegal.
 
Sandhusker said:
I won't support NAFTA (that would include the US filing any suit against Canada under NAFTA) because I think an illegal contract can not and should not be honored by any parties, and when the contract contains a provision that gives powers expressly reserved to Congress to another entity, it becomes illegal.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you don't support ANY trade agreement, since they all fall under the World Trade Organization, once again another entity to which your government signed you up for?

You do realize that eventually the world is going to get sick of being shafted by the US at every turn and eventually tell you guys to stick it, right? You think your economy is in bad shape now, just wait...

Rod
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
I won't support NAFTA (that would include the US filing any suit against Canada under NAFTA) because I think an illegal contract can not and should not be honored by any parties, and when the contract contains a provision that gives powers expressly reserved to Congress to another entity, it becomes illegal.
Click to expand...

So in other words, you don't support ANY trade agreement, since they all fall under the World Trade Organization, once again another entity to which your government signed you up for?

You do realize that eventually the world is going to get sick of being shafted by the US at every turn and eventually tell you guys to stick it, right? You think your economy is in bad shape now, just wait...

Rod
Click to expand...

Congratulations on making some damn fine points Rod, you are obviously a far more patient man than I am. The sad fact is that Sandhusker is one of those people who start with a conclusion (usually based on nothing) and then formulate a line of thinking to justify it, rather than taking a line of thinking to a logical conclusion. I think it comes from too many years of staring at ledgers, falling asleep, and banging his head on his desk. Well, perhaps that's an unfair statement. Maybe he just bangs his head on his desk because it feels better when he quits.
 
I'll say for the 783rd time, my problem is not with trade agreements in general; my problem is with trade agreements that have provisions that violate the US Constitution. When you have somebody other than Congress determining what our laws can and can't be, that is a violation. Determining what shall and shall not be our laws is the job of Congress primarily, and the President and Supreme Court secondary, and NOBODY else. I even brought the applicable parts of our Constitution that spell that out so you all can read them yourselves. I asked you to point out the part that states that a body of unelected foreigners can challenge our laws, and I'm still waiting for that to happen. Instead, I'm accused of reaching a conclusion based on nothing. The Constitution is the highest law, it is the final word, and everything else has operate under that framework. I didn't write the dang rules, I'm just reading them.

The problem is not with the Constitution; the problem is that the traders go too damn far with their agreements. There seems to be the notion that "trade" is the most important priority that we have and everything else has to take a back seat to accommodate it. We're supposed to put "trade" ahead of safety, existing laws, and even National sovereignty. I refuse. I stand with Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and the rest of our founding fathers.
 
The chairman of World Trade Organization negotiations on agriculture, New Zealand ambassador Crawford Falconer, issued on Saturday a revised negotiating draft on agriculture and industrial goods. The drafts would serve as a blueprint for an outline deal by ministers in a meeting that may be called for this month.

Canada is under pressure internationally to open up its decades-old "supply management" scheme, which protects these two industries by imposing high tariffs on imports as well as controlling domestic prices and production.

This is not apples or oranges, its protectionism Rod
 
Sandhusker said:
I'll say for the 783rd time, my problem is not with trade agreements in general; my problem is with trade agreements that have provisions that violate the US Constitution. When you have somebody other than Congress determining what our laws can and can't be, that is a violation.
Click to expand...

And I'll say for the 784th time, that you have problems with trade agreements in general, as _all_ trade agreements subjugate your laws to the will of the agreement being signed. And if you break the rules of the trade agreement, then the other country has the legal right to sue or expect fair treatment. For God's sake man, that is the very ESSENCE of a trade agreement, otherwise they are worthless pieces of paper that shouldn't be toyed with at all.

Another example: You have the constitutional right to put tariffs on another countries goods, however you have signed many agreements that say you won't do that. If you do, then that gives the other country the right, _under your own laws_, to expect compensation. Are you trying to tell me that under the US Constitution, if you sign an agreement, then break it, you're not liable in any way shape or form?

Come on man.

Every single trade agreement in the world says "You get this, I get this". It HAS to be this way, otherwise its not a trade agreement, but rather a unilateral bullying contract, and as a Canadian, I am damned sick and tired of being bullied. We gave you guys unbelievable access to our markets, our natural resources, and our lands in return for access to your markets with our goods. You've screwed us in softwood lumber, screwed us with HRSW, and are now screwing us with MCOOL. Do you really expect us to take it lying down? Eventually NAFTA will be nothing more than a "USA Gets This" document. Sorry man, but I won't stand for the horseshit anymore.

Rod
 
PORKER said:
This is not apples or oranges, its protectionism Rod
Click to expand...

I never once said that Canada or any of its laws weren't protectionist. Quite the contrary. I also have the same anti-protectionist views on our own laws, at least with regards to the USA. I believe in a FULLY OPEN, FREE BORDER BETWEEN THE US AND CANADA.

But we've also never done what the US is now doing: Signing a contract that said we'll eliminate those protectionist measures and then turning around and erecting trade barriers on those very goods or countries that we promised access to.

So, apples and oranges, Porker.

Rod
 
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
I'll say for the 783rd time, my problem is not with trade agreements in general; my problem is with trade agreements that have provisions that violate the US Constitution. When you have somebody other than Congress determining what our laws can and can't be, that is a violation.
Click to expand...

And I'll say for the 784th time, that you have problems with trade agreements in general, as _all_ trade agreements subjugate your laws to the will of the agreement being signed. And if you break the rules of the trade agreement, then the other country has the legal right to sue or expect fair treatment. For God's sake man, that is the very ESSENCE of a trade agreement, otherwise they are worthless pieces of paper that shouldn't be toyed with at all.

Another example: You have the constitutional right to put tariffs on another countries goods, however you have signed many agreements that say you won't do that. If you do, then that gives the other country the right, _under your own laws_, to expect compensation. Are you trying to tell me that under the US Constitution, if you sign an agreement, then break it, you're not liable in any way shape or form?

Come on man.

Every single trade agreement in the world says "You get this, I get this". It HAS to be this way, otherwise its not a trade agreement, but rather a unilateral bullying contract, and as a Canadian, I am damned sick and tired of being bullied. We gave you guys unbelievable access to our markets, our natural resources, and our lands in return for access to your markets with our goods. You've screwed us in softwood lumber, screwed us with HRSW, and are now screwing us with MCOOL. Do you really expect us to take it lying down? Eventually NAFTA will be nothing more than a "USA Gets This" document. Sorry man, but I won't stand for the horseshit anymore.

Rod
Click to expand...

Not all trade agreements subjugate our laws. Please, please, please show me where the Constitution allows a trade agreement to trump a legislative action of Congress. You can file a protest and actions can be taken under the authority of the agreement, but the agreement can't give Congressional authority away and that is exactly what is happening when a WTO or NAFTA board tells Congress that they have to change a law, eliminate one, or not enforce one.

This whole episode exposes these trade agreements as going too damn far. I'm reminded of that Mexican truck deal where the trade panel says that we can't enforce our existing safety laws on Mexican trucks because it is a trade barrier. Anything can be a trade barrier if your imagination is big enough, and these damn free trade agreements don't allow any room for common sense.
 
Sandhusker said:
DiamondSCattleCo said:
Sandhusker said:
I'll say for the 783rd time, my problem is not with trade agreements in general; my problem is with trade agreements that have provisions that violate the US Constitution. When you have somebody other than Congress determining what our laws can and can't be, that is a violation.
Click to expand...

And I'll say for the 784th time, that you have problems with trade agreements in general, as _all_ trade agreements subjugate your laws to the will of the agreement being signed. And if you break the rules of the trade agreement, then the other country has the legal right to sue or expect fair treatment. For God's sake man, that is the very ESSENCE of a trade agreement, otherwise they are worthless pieces of paper that shouldn't be toyed with at all.

Another example: You have the constitutional right to put tariffs on another countries goods, however you have signed many agreements that say you won't do that. If you do, then that gives the other country the right, _under your own laws_, to expect compensation. Are you trying to tell me that under the US Constitution, if you sign an agreement, then break it, you're not liable in any way shape or form?

Come on man.

Every single trade agreement in the world says "You get this, I get this". It HAS to be this way, otherwise its not a trade agreement, but rather a unilateral bullying contract, and as a Canadian, I am damned sick and tired of being bullied. We gave you guys unbelievable access to our markets, our natural resources, and our lands in return for access to your markets with our goods. You've screwed us in softwood lumber, screwed us with HRSW, and are now screwing us with MCOOL. Do you really expect us to take it lying down? Eventually NAFTA will be nothing more than a "USA Gets This" document. Sorry man, but I won't stand for the horseshit anymore.

Rod
Click to expand...

Not all trade agreements subjugate our laws. Please, please, please show me where the Constitution allows a trade agreement to trump a legislative action of Congress.
Click to expand...

Yep- and since NAFTA was not treated as a Treaty- and passed by the Supermajority needed to ratify a treaty-- any new law passed by a later Congress and signed by the President would replace and supersede it....
Just like M-COOL does.....
 
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Not all trade agreements subjugate our laws. Please, please, please show me where the Constitution allows a trade agreement to trump a legislative action of Congress.
Click to expand...

Yep- and since NAFTA was not treated as a Treaty- and passed by the Supermajority needed to ratify a treaty-- any new law passed by a later Congress and signed by the President would replace and supersede it....
Just like M-COOL does.....
Click to expand...

Sandhusker, please please please illustrate a trade agreement that wouldn't subjugate your laws to the will of the trade agreement, and still be fair for both parties. And in this illustration, show me how you can unilaterally change the trade agreement without the consent of the other party...

Please.

Oldtimer, as for you, there are no "supercedence" of laws, even under your system, as your system is based on the exact same one as ours. The proper method for replacing a law is to:
1) Eliminate the old one. This is done several ways. Simply ignoring it is not an appropriate method.
2) Pass the new one.

What the US is trying to do, as I've pointed out several times during the course of this thread, is bypass 1) which is not legal under Canadian law, US law, or English law which is what our two countries have based their lawmaking on.

Rod
 
I don't know the different ways that trade agreements have been set up. If they've been set up in the past to subjugate our existing laws, then that has been wrong. Again, I direct you to the Constitution, where is there any place that gives room for a trade agreement to trump our laws? If you can't find anything, you've got no arguement. Don't you realize what the Constitution is?

I understand your complaint about our law violating the trade agreement. I get that. Sure, we should of tried to keep peace by amending the agreement. But, it's just a damn trade agreement - and it's a crappy one that has done nothing but put us farther in the hole. Trade agreements get violated all the time, they're like compacts between theives. Trade has a lower priority than safety, sovereignity, national defense, etc...... The people want COOL because we don't trust all the foreign crap that is sent here via the new trade agreements and lack of inspection. Safety trumps trade. Are we going to violate a damn trade agreement or are we going to violate our highest law? The Constitution can't be violated, so there is no choice.
 
Sandhusker, think about what you're advocating:

"A trade agreement should not subjugate your laws to the will of the trade agreement."

In other words, you believe you should be able to break them at any time, just by voting in a new government, and telling them that you don't like the agreement?

BUT, you expect to be able to do this all while still benefitting from the trade agreement?

So if I come into your bank, get a loan, and the loans officer changes jobs or dies, does that mean I don't have to pay the loan back? Excellent. I'm coming to your bank for a loan. I've burned through 3 loans managers already....

You don't have any respect for contracts, Sandhusker. At least not ones that don't see the US winning all the time.

People want COOL because of all the crap that is PROCESSED OUTSIDE YOUR COUNTRY! Not because it is born outside your country. You and your pet politicians have managed to twist that reality around and you've got that idiot Obama believing you...

Rod
 
If I make a loan to a minor only, it is not binding because the law says that I can't make loans to minors without an adult cosigning. I can get burned on it and it will be shame on me for bending the rules.

I have no respect for these free trade agreements because they don't respect the Constitution. They're not valid under the highest law. These agreements have to agree with the Constitution, not the Constitution agreeing with them.
 
Trade Agreement - A bilateral or multilateral treaty or other enforceable compact committing two or more nations to specified terms of commerce, usually involving mutually beneficial concessions.

Nowhere in the definition of trade agreement, could I find the word Law. I looked up a number of definitions in a number of dictionaries, and the word law never came up.

On the other hand,

Law - imposition by a sovereign authority and the obligation of obedience on the part of all subjects to that authority.

Therefore, it would follow that a law is an internal regulation that pertains directly to the citizens of a country, and what goes on within that country. It is a regulation meant to be applied to internal affairs of a certain country.

NAFTA IS NOT A LAW. It's a trade agreement.

If it was a law, then that would mean that the U.S. expects Canada to live under it's LAW. Last time I checked, a country subjecting another country to it's laws was usually in the position of invading or overtaking said country.

Just as you say you shouldn't have to live under a regulation that Congress didn't pass, we have the right to say that we shouldn't have to live under a regulation that congress did pass, which is what would be happening if NAFTA really was a law.

NAFTA IS NOT A LAW.

:!:
 
Kato,

NAFTA is legitimately passed legislation in the US, Canada and Mexico and thereby is, by definition, a law.

Sandy,

Your Constitutional ranting lacks any basic in law. Try doing a little research before you go off next time and then your daughter won't have to laugh at you.

"In United States, the nondelegation doctrine is the principle that the Congress of the United States, being vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, delegation of some authority is exercised as an implied power of Congress, and has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court, as long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch. "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch, the extent and character of that assistance must be fixed according to common sense and the inherent necessities of the government co-ordination.' So long as Congress 'shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.'"[2]

For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency in the Executive branch created by Congress with the power to regulate food and drugs in the United States. Congress has given the FDA a broad mandate to ensure the safety of the public and prevent false advertising, but it is up to the agency to assess risks and announce prohibitions on harmful additives, and to determine the process by which actions will be brought based on the same. Similarly, the Internal Revenue Service has been given the responsibility of collecting taxes that are assessed under the Internal Revenue Code. Although Congress has determined the amount of the tax to be assessed, it has delegated to the IRS the authority to determine how such taxes are to be collected. Administrative agencies like these are sometimes referred to as the Fourth Branch of government."

NAFTA is truly replete with governing principles. Pages of them. Books of them. If State or even Federal law purports to violate these principles, Congress and the President have legally granted the NAFTA arbitration panel the right to declare such violations illegal. And they do. What the arbitration panel does NOT have the power to do, which you seem to be under the mistaken impression that they do have, is to rescind the impugned laws. Paper tiger stuff. Softwood lumber and all that. So, before you get your shorts in a knot again over NAFTA being illegal according to the Constitution (which it is not), and Congress turning over the power to make or break laws in the US to foreigners (which power the NAFTA arbitrators never had), do a little research. Oh, and may I respectfully suggest you clean the egg off your face first? Might help you see more clearly.
 
Actually "seeing" something was never something that sandy considered as being important. He finds it more gratifying to just run his mouth.

As for oldtimer, he's just got the continual runs. . .
 
Shaft, ".....as long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch. "'In determining what Congress may do in seeking assistance from another branch,...."

"Branch" of what? Perhaps branch of the government, as is the FDA, USDA, etc....? What government agency does the NAFTA trade panel fall under?

Come on, Shaft, you can do better than this. This is what Congress uses to give authority to intragovernmental agencies to assist them in performing their charges, not to empower foreign bodies.
 
okay sandhusker, if the nafta and other trade agreements are so blatantly unconstitutional why has nobody been able to successfully show that in the supreme court of the united states. are you the only genius who can make the case? you look so totally ridiculous by making this argument as if it's obvious beyond doubt and yet you're the only person who sees it. you have nothing and that's the hilarious part of all this. what a fool!
 
:agree: :agree: :agree:

Strange, it used to be amusing watching him fumble along with these dimwitted arguments, but it has since become a rather pathetic whining that grates on the nerves like fingernails on the chalkboard.
 

Latest posts

Top