WTO Challenge.........

[Sandhusker]

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!

I'm not the only one, there are many people who make this claim. Do a google search on the topic and you get 78,000 pages. I've already explained half a dozen times that people have tried to challenge it in courts. District Courts won't hear the case because they claim that only the Supreme Court can rule on this type of case. The Supreme Court won't hear it because they claim that they only hear cases that have gone through lower courts first. They're just getting the judicial run-around, the same run-around that the people who want our Kenyan President to prove he meets the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen are getting. We don't have a perfect system.

Unfortunately, there is no Constitutinal filter that a bill has to go through before becoming law.

 

[don]

wishful thinking or somebody would have done it by now. i'm sure you're not the only nitwit but you are a nitwit. now get into the real world.

 

[Sandhusker]

wishful thinking or somebody would have done it by now. i'm sure you're not the only nitwit but you are a nitwit. now get into the real world.

I just explained to you why nobody has done it (again). What was so hard about my explaination that you didn't understand?

 

[don]

your explanation doesn't hold water. do you really think if trade agreements/treaties were unconstitutional they would be allowed to stand? for how many centuries now? you're delusional; hanging on to the rantings of some rightwing isolationist/protectionists who say things fools like you like to hear. the reality is that the usa couldn't sustain itself and has to rely on the resources of other countries which people with your attitude like to steal so the us is despised around the world. what's happening in the global economy now is the demise of america (you've been living on credit - other countries' money) and now the world is calling the note. you're screwed

 

[Sandhusker]

How many flipping times do I have to say that it isn't trade agreements in general! It's just ones with the certain provisions that give some appointed board of foreigners power that they can't have!

 

[don]

so what are your legislators doing letting this stand? convict them all of treason for being traitors to the country for passing the enabling legislation. get real.

 

[Sandhusker]

so what are your legislators doing letting this stand? convict them all of treason for being traitors to the country for passing the enabling legislation. get real.

Don't you think it would be hard to covict them of anything when your case would be based on the unconstitutionality of NAFTA, and you can't so much as get the case heard, much less a ruling? You need to get real.

 

[don]

rotflmao. you're living with a fantasy! if nafta is so blatantly unconstitutional there are bigger forces than a junior banker from nebraska to press the issue. but i hope you get it ruled illegal. i feel safer selling oil to china - they're probably more likely to be able to pay.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

How many flipping times do I have to say that it isn't trade agreements in general! It's just ones with the certain provisions that give some appointed board of foreigners power that they can't have!

WHICH IS EVERY SINGLE TRADE AGREEMENT! How many flippin' times do we have to say that?

Every single trade agreement subjugates a certain amount of federal authority to the country that the agreement is being signed with.

I'll ask you again, give me an example of a trade agreement that wouldn't be unconstitutional. Since you're so sure that NAFTA is against your constitution, surely you must know what wouldn't be.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

Maybe I need to give an example of the problem. Let's go back to the good 'ol Mexican truck deal. In February 2001, a NAFTA tribunal ruled that the U.S. has been violating the terms of NAFTA because it had limited access of Mexican trucks to a 20-mile commercial zone along the border. We had taken that action because most Mexican trucks couldn't pass our previously established laws on highway safety and pollution. This was CLEARLY not an effort to hinder trade, but the tribunal, which is a kangaroo court that only looks at an issue from one angle, trade, ruled against us. Now, they can't directly force our government to change our laws like in the form of a veto or what not, but they do it indirectly - they impose tariffs, fines, etc.... The result is the same, they rule and you either change your laws to make accomodate their view of trade, or you pay.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Now I want some answers to my questions:

1) So in other words you are against any agreement that doesn't allow the US to do whatever it wants, and damn the consequences?

2) You feel that a contract can be broken at any time, and there should be no fines, penalties, or punishment exacted at all? And when I say contract, I mean trade agreements, employment contracts, or even bank loan contracts.

Now bear in mind this: Every single trade agreement, EVERY ONE, not just NAFTA, has an arbitration process should a dispute arise. The arbitration panel is always made up of 3rd parties. This panel decides whether or not there has been a breach of contract and decides what steps need to be taken, should there be a breach.

With the above in mind:

3) Are you actually for trade agreements?

4) If the answer is yes, give me an example of a practical trade agreement that would satisfy you. I've asked you for this several times, yet I haven't seen one.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

It seems to me that a contract between the American people and our lawmakers was broken when Mexican trucks that didn't meet our standards were allowed on our soil.

 

[Silver]

Perhaps next time your lawmakers are involved in negotiating a treaty they will keep that in mind and write something in to protect against such eventualities. Where there are loopholes, folks will find them.
Kinda like how we said there would be no raw logs exported from here to yankeeland, so a clever plan is hatched to take a slab off two sides of the logs, thus making them 'sawed lumber' and sending them on their merry way. Shame on us for allowing this to happen, but next time perhaps we'll be a little smarter.
Part of life is living up to your agreements. Part of living in a democracy is putting up with what your leaders get you into until such time as the people affect change.
In other words; suck it up, Buttercup

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I give up Sandhusker. You say you are for trade agreements and trade, yet you offer absolutely no scenarios in which you feel a trade agreement is "proper". Indeed, you don't seem to feel that a trade agreement needs to be upheld or enforced in any way, shape, or form, unless its for the USA and to hell with the other guy.

Good luck with your non-trade USA, Sandhusker. You're going to need it. Better rustle up some drinking water and saddle ponies...

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

Rod, I don't know how to structure a trade agreement so that it doesn't cause problems with domestic obligations and laws. It looks to me that you either enforce a trade agreement or you enforce your own laws. You can't seem to have both. Look at that truck deal; keep the trucks out and you violate the trade agreement, let them in and you violate safety laws and environmental regulations. Aren't you forced to pick your poison?

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

Rod, I don't know how to structure a trade agreement so that it doesn't cause problems with domestic obligations and laws. It looks to me that you either enforce a trade agreement or you enforce your own laws. You can't seem to have both. Look at that truck deal; keep the trucks out and you violate the trade agreement, let them in and you violate safety laws and environmental regulations. Aren't you forced to pick your poison?

It looks like I finally got through to you. Eventually, you have to choose the lesser of two evils:

1) No trade with your neighbors. In the US's case, this means escalating food costs (you simply don't have the arable land mass to feed your people), brown outs (you don't have enough power), lack of water, and escalating fuel costs (you get a healthy percentage of your crude oil at below market costs), and frozen homes (you get a pile of your natural gas from us)

2) Trade with your neighbors. This means having to sacrifice some things. After all, we sacrificed our natural resources to gain unfettered access.

Now you're trying to remove that access, without giving up what you got in return. Do you really blame Canadians for being pissed?

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

Seems to me that we were trading for a couple hundred years before this free trade horsecrap came up, and I don't rememeber any great shortages.

Rod, we're not removing any access to our markets. All we're asking is that a label be placed it your product, we're doing the exact same with ours, and let the consumer decide! I acknowledge that the packers are making the EXCUSE that Canadian product is creating more overhead for them, but that's all it is, an EXCUSE. They're putting the screws to you so that you help out their cause and try to get COOL overturned. You're being used by the same g-damn people who have been playing you against us for years - so they can continue to take money out of our pockets and keep us all under their foot.

What happened to all the Canadian packing capacity that was supposed to take packing jobs away from the US?

 

[Kato]

Most of it is owned by Americans, and is being used to the benefit of big American business, and the detriment of independent cattle producers on BOTH sides of the border. They've managed to keep new plants from ever getting off the ground, and have only gotten stronger. Sadly there are just not enough of us left standing to have a voice that's heard any more. We've been abandoned by our government and their big business buddies, and left to fight for ourselves. We have a government in power right now that is very much a wannabe American style government, and they just don't listen. Maybe after the new year that will change.

MCOOL is costing American cattle producers too. Any extra costs associated with the laws will be paid, and not paid by the packers. With the current economic situation, demand for beef will be a major worry, and passing on extra costs to the consumer will not be an option.

What is an option? Paying less for cattle. It's the easiest quickest and most effective way to keep costs down and profits up. It's costing us a lot, but it's also costing you.

You might get enjoyment out of criticizing the Canadian cattle producer for getting into such a bind, but at least we didn't go out and lobby for a law that will end up costing us money. :!: At least we can rest assured that the extra costs of MCOOL aren't put on us because of anything we asked the government to do. Can you say the same thing?

 

[Sandhusker]

I don't buy the idea that COOL is going to cost a lot of money. Where are all the costs that you speak of going to come from?

 

[Kato]

According to the Iowa beef center,

Presently under the interim final rule, the recordkeeping burden for the first year is estimated at $126 million
for development and operation and $499 million for maintenance and operation. Thus, the total
recordkeeping cost for all participants in the supply chain for covered commodities is estimated at $624
million for the first year, with subsequent maintenance costs of $499 million per year.

Economic Impacts
The direct cost to retailers and their suppliers include the recordkeeping burden plus capital, labor, and other
related costs to manage product flow at the producer, intermediary, and retailer levels.
Benefits: The expected benefits from implementation of this rule remain difficult to quantify. Available
studies on the potential benefits of mandatory COOL suggest that benefits will likely be small. There is still
little tangible evidence found to support that consumers' stated preferences for COOL information will lead
to increased demand for commodities bearing a U.S.-origin label. Comments and new studies were of the
same type indentified in the PRIA—namely, consumer surveys and willingness-to-pay studies.
Direct Costs: In the initial proposed rule, first-year implementation costs for directly impacted firms were
estimated to range from $582 to $3,882 million.
Taking into account comments, it was concluded that costs would likely fall in the upper range of estimated
costs. Therefore, only a single set of costs are developed for the new regulation. The first-year
implementation costs for directly affected firms are now estimated at $2,517 million. Compared to the upper
range estimate of the proposed rule, this is a reduction in the estimated costs of $1,365 million, even with the
addition of 5 new covered commodities.
Costs per firm are estimated at $376 for producers, $53,948 for intermediaries, and $235,551 for retailers.
The new costs estimates per firm for producers and retailers are lower than the PRIA estimates due to lower
estimated costs per unit. Costs for intermediaries are higher due to the lower number of affected firm

Ohio University Extension

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Whether it's for health and nutrition, safety, sustainability or some other reason, consumers' food-purchasing choices continue to widen. In the mix with local foods, organics and genetically modified products now comes country of origin labeling (COOL).

On Sept. 30, mandatory country of origin labeling became effective for meat and perishable agricultural commodities such as fresh fruits and vegetables. Fish and shellfish having been subject to COOL requirements since April 2005.

"Retailers are now required to notify consumers whether the product they are buying is of U.S. origin or from another country," said Ian Sheldon, Ohio State University Andersons Professor of International Trade with the Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics.

Products falling under COOL requirements include beef, lamb, pork, chicken, goat, wild and farm-raised fish and shellfish, fresh fruits and vegetables, and some nuts such as peanuts, pecans and macadamia nuts. Under COOL, ingredients in processed food items are not required to be labeled; however, many imported products still must indicate the country of origin of their ingredients under the Tariff Act of 1930.

"For example, frozen peas and carrots are processed foods and in principle are not subject to COOL requirements. However, if those peas and carrots came from another country, then the product has to be labeled," said Sheldon, who holds an appointment with the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.

Apart from giving consumers greater choice in what products they buy, Sheldon doesn't see much benefit with the implementation of COOL.

"I'm not sure what the economic logic is. I just don't see what the specific risks are for such a law to be required. If it's about safety, then perhaps we should be spending money on food safety. Do we want to leave it to consumers to determine if a product is safe based on a label?" said Sheldon, who also holds an OSU Extension appointment. "Perhaps some U.S. producers see it as a means of protecting themselves from foreign competition.

Do ya think???

But so many foreign producers, like those from Australia and New Zealand, are already doing a good job of marketing their products based on country of origin."

Sheldon said if anything, COOL might further drive up already high food prices because of the costs retailers must incur to make sure items are labeled. Those costs eventually will trickle down to the average shopper.

"The one thing I don't like about COOL is the across-the-board implementation. That means consumers will be paying higher prices for products whether or not they care which country their food is coming from," said Sheldon. "It has nothing to do with freshness, taste, or quality. The COOL label is simply a characteristic added to a food product that ultimately the consumer will have to pay for. I think it's something that will hurt some consumers in the long run."

And producers will pay for it too. All producers. No packers.

Whatever impact, if any, COOL will have on the market, Sheldon said the new law was designed ultimately to give consumers greater food choices based on their preferences.

"There is a segment of the population that obviously won't care about COOL, but there is also a segment of the population that wants it and is willing to pay for it," said Sheldon. "Whether they worry about food safety problems such as E. coli or mad cow disease, or worry about whether their raspberries come from California or Mexico, there will be some demand for products based on country of origin labeling."

But all consumers, producers, and everyone in between will be paying for the minority who already have access to information about their food if they really want it.