Posted on 08/02/2004 1:58:16 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
How great it must be to be Bill Clinton these days. Not only can he enjoy vast new wealth, but he can impress Democratic audiences and the punditocracy by expressing guilt about it. Better yet, even after just publishing a 1,000-page autobiography, he can indulge in selective economic policy amnesia with few fears of being held accountable – even by conservatives.
Still, at the risk of being killjoys, we at Globalization Follies couldn´t let his speech to the Democratic convention go unchallenged. As Clinton told it, he left America´s finances in great shape. Then George W. Bush got elected president and ruined everything. The result: We´re deeply in debt to foreign governments, especially China and Japan, and we can´t act effectively against their protectionism because “How can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers?”
What Clinton conveniently left out was that despite his federal budget balancing (largely by cutting the defense budget and presiding over tech and stock market bubbles), the explosion in the trade deficit that started during his presidency remains a huge source of America´s international indebtedness.
Clinton´s remarks about trade laws were even less excusable. First, nothing has weakened America´s trade laws like his determination to create the World Trade Organization, whose main purpose was to limit U.S. authority to enforce these laws. Second, Clinton claimed emphatically that the WTO would put world trade diplomacy on a strictly legal basis. Therefore, the status of China and Japan as America´s bankers should have no effect on America´s ability to secure economic justice at the WTO.
More fundamentally, why is Clinton worried about foreign debt in the first place? After all, as he insisted, “We live in an interdependent world.” And Democrats want “more global cooperation.” What could be more interdependent and cooperative than this? China and Japan lend us more and more money, and we buy more and more of their goods. Is Clinton suggesting that one day the lending might stop? How could it? That wouldn´t be interdependent or cooperative.
Of course, Clinton is now a political act, not a policy-maker, so he has an excuse for self-serving incoherence. Not so for his Democratic audience, whose claim to future leadership eroded with each burst of wild applause for this latest exercise in cynicism.
(Source: “President Bill Clinton,” http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=lul2LaPYG&b=131063&ct=158734)
Alan Tonelson is a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business & Industry Educational Foundation and the author of The Race to the Bottom: Why a Worldwide Worker Surplus and Uncontrolled Free Trade are Sinking American Living Standards (Westview Press).
ping
Clinton was well loved by Thomas L. Friedman, who used much of the Clinton Admin's globalist 3rd way gobbledygook in his "The Lexus and the Olive Tree." It is telling that Bush, while still far too much of a globalist to be any sort of all time hero in my book, got a colder review by Friedman, especially after his Axis of Evil speech. Kerry clearly fits the 3rd Way globalist image better than Bush. Naturally that's why Soros et al love him and want him to replace Bush.
Clinton´s remarks about trade laws were even less excusable. First, nothing has weakened America´s trade laws like his determination to create the World Trade Organization, whose main purpose was to limit U.S. authority to enforce these laws.
In other words, Bill Clinton was the prime mover behind the WTO. Embrace your hero, free traitors! Bill Clinton is your leader - claim him! Enjoy!
If you want on or off my offshoring ping list, please FReepmail me!
How the WTO undermines our sovereignty and violates our Constitutional rights as citizens...
***
Complaint #1. Wrongful Assignment of the Legislative Power of Congress (Three-Judge District Court Requested).
The Uruguay Round of GATT, according to the Articles in List #1, establish the WTO, establish that the Multilateral Trade Agreements, including those in Annexes 1, 2, & 3, are binding upon member nations, and establish that WTO member nations, will without reservation, ensure their laws, regulations, and administrative procedures conform to the obligations as agreed. The Articles in List #2, taken from Annex 2 to the Agreement establishing the WTO, establish a procedure, whereby, if member nations are unable to negotiate a mutually satisfactory solution to a dispute or controversy, then the (DSB) may adopt a solution as recommended by a Panel. This adopted ruling, as agreed to without reservation, is legally binding upon the disputing parties and all other member nations of the WTO. Therefore, when a Panel ruling is adopted by the DSB, the DSB has performed a legislative act.
Article I, Section 1, of our Constitution states that the legislative powers of our Nation will be vested in Congress. If rulings adopted by the DSB are legislative acts, legally binding upon member nations, then a part of the legislative power granted to Congress by the Constitution, is no longer vested in Congress, but instead, has been assigned to the WTO. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given authority to assign any part of its legislative powers to a second party. To be sure, the wording of Article I, Section 1, is clear, "All legislative powers shall be vested in Congress". If, as has been demonstrated, a portion of the legislative power of Congress is now vested in the WTO, then Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution has been violated. For this reason, GATT and our participation in the WTO as members is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.
Complaint #2. Wrongful Abridgment of the Voting Rights of Citizens (Three-Judge District Court Requested).
Article I, Sections 1 & 2, of the Constitution provide that the people of each state shall directly elect those who represent them in Congress; our national Legislature. In Complaint #1, it has been established that under the Uruguay Round of GATT, Congress has wrongfully assigned part of its legislative power to the WTO. If the legislative power vested in Congress is divided between Congress and the WTO and, as is the case, United States citizens do not directly vote for WTO representatives, then it follows that the voters of this Nation do not vote for those who exercise the assigned portion of legislative power. If the voting citizens of this Nation no longer vote for those who establish "all" of our laws, then the voting rights of Americans have been abridged in violation of Article I, Sections 1 & 2 of our Constitution. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and our membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.
Complaint #3. Wrongful Assignment of the Power to Regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations (Three-Judge District Court Requested).
The Uruguay Round of GATT, Article II, Paragraph 1, states that, "The WTO shall provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its Members in matters related to the agreements and associated legal instruments included in the Annexes to this Agreement". In contrast, Article I, Section 8, of our Constitution states that, "The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution this power". Nowhere in our Constitution is Congress given authority to assign its power to regulate commerce with foreign nations to a second party or to bestow authority upon that second party to make their own laws, legally binding upon Americans, to carry out execution of their assigned powers. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.
Complaint #4. Wrongful Assignment of the Judicial Power of the Supreme Court (Three-Judge District Court Requested).
The Uruguay Round of GATT, through the Articles listed in Item #2, establish a procedure, whereby, if a member nation of the WTO is offended by an existing United States law, that nation can bring this issue or controversy before the DSB for resolution. If the DSB adopts a panel report in favor of the offended Nation, we have agreed, without reservation, to nullify the offending law. Therefore, DSB adopted rulings result in the repeal of United States law. Article III, Section 1, of our Constitution, provides that the judicial power of this Nation shall be vested in our Supreme Court or other inferior courts. Furthermore, Article III, Section 2, of our Constitution provides that the judicial power of this Nation shall in all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, including the Laws of the United States and treaties made or which shall be made; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party, and to Controversies between foreign States, Citizens, or Subjects. Under GATT, these provisions of Article III, Sections 1 & 2, no longer are effective. The Articles listed in Item #2, establish that the DSB of the WTO now retains some of the judicial power vested by our Constitution in our Supreme Court. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given authority to assign the judicial power of the Supreme Court to a second party. For these reasons, the enactment of GATT and our membership in the WTO, is repugnant to our Constitution and unconstitutional.
Complaint #5. Wrongful Change in Primary Governmental Functions by A Simple Legislative Act (Three-Judge District Court Requested).
A constitution is sacred to a Nation because of its three fundamental purposes; it establishes government, establishes how government will function, and protects the rights of citizens. All Constitutions include a procedure for amending its provisions. This amendment procedure is rigorous to preclude frivolous change and demands a higher level of passage than a simple legislative act. Therefore, changing any constitution through a simple legislative act is unconstitutional because it bypasses the more demanding required amendment process and the protections included therein.
If a fundamental purpose of our Constitution is to establish how our government functions and two prime functions of our government are to establish and review laws, then it follows that any significant change to our legislative or judicial review processes, must be made by amendment. This truth is fundamental and self-evident. Clearly, it is wrong to allow a lower level procedure established by the Constitution to change procedures provided for in the Constitution, when a higher level procedure is included for that purpose. Therefore, any ordinary legislative act which results in a change to how our government functions is unconstitutional because it trivializes the amendment process and by extension, the Constitution itself.
When Congress passed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), thereby establishing this Nation as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), it did so through a simple majority vote on a trade bill. Unfortunately, WTO membership entails far more than just a trade agreement because the organization was constituted to govern world trade through a dispute settlement process. This dispute settlement process, supersedes and replaces the legislative and legislative review processes established by our Constitution and therefore as demonstrated in Complaints 1, 2, 3, & 4, constitutes a fundamental and significant change in how our government functions and operates. These fundamental and significant changes are as follows:
Before GATT:
Subject to final approval by the President, Congress enacted all laws governing this Nation and its people.
The people of this Nation voted directly for those who made our laws.
Congress, alone, regulated commerce with foreign nations.
The Supreme Court was the final and only authority over United States law.
After GATT:
The power to enact laws has been divided between Congress and the WTO. Furthermore, The president does not have veto power over laws established by the WTO.
The people of this Nation no longer vote directly for those who make our laws.
Congress no longer regulates commerce with foreign nations and this authority now resides with the WTO.
The judicial review authority of our Supreme Court has been divided between the Supreme Court and WTO. Furthermore, the situation is such that our Supreme Court cannot overrule a WTO ruling without violating our agreements with that organization.
It is self-evident that these changes wrought by the enactment of GATT, are significant and fundamental such that they constitute a change in the nature and form of our government. This being true, the Congressional vote for the Uruguay Round of GATT, a simple legislative act of Congress, is repugnant to our Constitution because such significant and fundamental change to governmental functions must be made by Constitutional Amendment. For these reasons, GATT and our membership in the WTO is unconstitutional.
Isn't amazing how many problems would be solved if we'd return to the Constitution?
You're welcome.
We must keep the Constitution at the top of every debate. Its the only way, I think, we can get it back.
The only thing that motivates Soros is MORE MONEY.
Idealism, my hairy butt...
Trick is to figure out how Soros is betting and duplicate his bet (smaller stakes, of course.)
What we have here is the Lead Traitor.
But let us never forget the Other Traitor--Newtie Gingrich--also a man of many lovers---who slammed this crap through Congress.
You don't suppose it's a co-incidence that both these Illustrious Traitors couldn't keep their marriage vows, either???
Truth be told, it doesn't surprise me, anymore than Jack Kemp's positions surprise me anymore.
If you get a chance, read "Who are we?" by Huntingon. I just finished the book, and it has lots of conclusions that we've all felt in our gut but haven't been able to document.
One point is that the elites - in government, the media, academia, and so on - are much more oriented toward globalization and away from identifying with a nation, whereas the ordinary American is more interested in his or her country. The elites are (Huntington has numbers for all this) more loyal to groups, corporations, and other non-national affiliations than they are to their country.
Seriously, read the book if you get a chance. It's well worth the time.
bttt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.