Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Constitution under attack. What is the FTAA?
Free Trade Area of the Americas ^ | ongoing | FTAA

Posted on 09/05/2004 5:52:32 PM PDT by backtothestreets

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 last
To: robowombat
Any mention of such consideration in any stated opinion of a member of the Supreme Court is too much

Well, of course, it was only mentioned in passing, as a response to CJ Burger's concurrence in Bowers which argued that the sodomy laws possessed "ancient roots" in Western civilization. Burger stated: “Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization." So is it inappropriate for Burger to make such claims about foreign cultures? Indeed, is it inappropriate for Justices such as Scalia to cite Blackstone or pre-revolution common law of England?

Regardless, Kennedy's reference to European law was only to refute CJ Burger's statement about the history of Western Civilization. If Kennedy was wrong to mention European authorities, then Burger was surely wrong to rely on foreign authority to condemn sodomy in the first place. You can't have it both ways. In the end, of course, it had absolutely nothing to do with the decision other than to cast doubt on a premise that was initially proposed by one of the more conservative members of the court a couple of decades earlier.

Anyway, I don't accept your premise that the FTAA trumps US sovereignty. Sorry. There's just no evidence of it.

101 posted on 09/07/2004 11:55:03 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: texastoo
You expect corrupt Mexico to follow the rules

If it doesn't follow the rulues, the US has the power to block importation. Next objection?

102 posted on 09/07/2004 11:56:38 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
The discussions must include those that we duly elect to represent our interests.

Now are you making an argument against Fast Track authority?

I certainly agree that there ought to be a rational, informed debate over trade agreements. I frankly don't see how an objective person, after such a debate, could conclude that trade agreements are bad things. After all, what have been the objections on here? Objections over things that are clearly addressed in the document! Someone actually said that Mexico could legally import contaminated food under the NAFTA. Are you kidding? A rational, informed debate would disspell untruths such as this.

Remember, the NAFTA, as with any other trade agreement, is the product of a negotiation. Each country agrees to do (or not to do) certain things. Everything in the NAFTA was a production of an agreement between the US, Mexico, and Canada. That's all it is. An agreement not to do things. An agreement to follow certain enforcement measures. An agreement to certain penalities. Assuming, arguendo, that the NAFTA requires the US to give up its sovereignty, are you arguing that a government has no power to do so? After all, in some respects, any treaty is an aborgation of sovereignty.

103 posted on 09/07/2004 12:04:38 PM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

Interesting. 1 - "When completed, the FTAA will be the largest free trade area in the world, with a combined GDP of more that $10 trillion and 800 million people. "

From CIA Fact Book - US Population 293 million, GDP $10.98 trillion .

So, we add 500 million people, and subtract 1 Trillion $ in GDP, and we get FTAA.


104 posted on 09/07/2004 12:38:48 PM PDT by XBob (Free-traitors steal our jobs for their profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XBob
What the heck kind of convoluted mathematical reasoning is that? Your figures suggest that we have the most to gain.
105 posted on 09/07/2004 1:05:32 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
"Someone actually said that Mexico could legally import contaminated food under the NAFTA. Are you kidding? A rational, informed debate would disspell untruths such as this."

I'm glad you want to press this point.  It's an area I have had much personal experience with.  I worked in the institutional food distribution industry for about 15 years, serving both wholesale and retail establishments.

Every winter we rely heavily on imported fresh produce from Mexico.  Every winter our warehouse staffs developed respiratory illnesses that persisted and lingered until crops in the US could be harvested.  The problem is known, as is the cause.  Mexico does not have the stringent bans on pesticides, fungicides, and other chemicals the US has.  While debates have flourished over the effects of minimal exposure to these agents, there is no debate exposure in concentrated amounts is harmful.

The only debate left to be tackled is in what amounts do minimal exposures become harmful if the body cannot properly dispose of these agents over time?  All the health data in our country points to steady increases of respiratory illnesses throughout our nation.  While proponents of air control regulations have been pointing to automobiles and factory discharges as the primary culprit, the occasional exposure to harmful agents, such as those used on fresh produce imported from Mexico, has not been addressed.  They should be.  If for no other reason but to know with certainty, it should be addressed.

Once again, the FTAA should be discussed openly by those duly elected, and seeking elective office.

"Now are you making an argument against Fast Track authority?"

Yeah, I'm against that too.  While some may argue this would be a good tool in the hands of President Bush, reality says GW will not be president forever.  This same tool in the hands of another president could wreck havoc.  Leave the Senate to do their job as outlined in the constitution.

And once again, the FTAA should be discussed openly by those duly elected, and those seeking elective office. An open discussion cannot harm the public. I agree with you the debates should be rational and informed.

106 posted on 09/07/2004 1:51:53 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

bump for later study placemarker


107 posted on 09/07/2004 2:05:18 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets
Every winter our warehouse staffs developed respiratory illnesses that persisted and lingered until crops in the US could be harvested.

Good grief. Your staff comes down with the flu and you blame NAFTA?

108 posted on 09/07/2004 3:40:10 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

"As this special issue of TNA shows, the so-called free trade agreements — the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas — have nothing to do with genuine free trade. They have everything to do with creating regional governing bodies on the road to world government."

Excerpt from The New American: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/09-06-2004/editor.htm

109 posted on 09/07/2004 3:46:01 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I think you miss the point regarding the steel tariff. Bush tucked tail and removed the tariff because an outside entity that was in the wrong told him to. I didn't like the steel tariff, what I liked less was getting marching orders in regards sovereign matters from a board of appointed nerds. Who are they? Who picks them? And we are about to increase their power big time with the FTAA?

Not every American is college caliber, that's not a slam just a fact. The ones that are going to be, and are being hurt by Free Trade are the ones that can least afford it. High School drop outs and those who, for economic or personal reasons, cannot improve their economic status.

The idea put to us by our politicians was for us to lift the boats of the third world, they didn't mention that it meant sinking ours. When a politician tells you that America's future lies in "small business" and every idiot nods in agreement, knowing full well that 90% of small business's go belly up in under five years, we are in trouble.

If our future lies in small business we are sunk friend. The only available industry openings talked about by political talking heads is in the medical field as teckies. How long will it take before that market is flooded?

Aside from all of the above, what we are talking about here is another form of invasion. An invasion that leads to the loss of sovereignty and self determination that our Founding Father's warned us about. Men that were much smarter than you or I warned that we could lose our nation by becoming involved in entangling treaties. I'm here to tell you we are tangled already with NAFTA and GATT, the FTAA is the cherry on the nation killing sundae.
110 posted on 09/07/2004 3:49:53 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: All

For the sake of debate on free trade issues I'd like to pose a question. All the nations involved in the FTAA can petition their citizens to join the United States of America. Our Constitution stays intact, trade barriers would be removed, and the sovereignty of our nation cannot be questioned. Is this not an option to free trade?


111 posted on 09/07/2004 4:46:42 PM PDT by backtothestreets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

You still can't add.

If the GDP of the US is 11 Trillion, and the GDP of the FTAA is 10 Trillion, That means that the GDP of all the other nations of FTAA outside the US have a NEGATIVE GDP, WHICH DRAWS DOWN the total GDP. So, basically, we in the US, would be subsidizing those extra 500 million people from our GDP.


112 posted on 09/07/2004 5:00:06 PM PDT by XBob (Free-traitors steal our jobs for their profit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: XBob

The zero-sum game. The last refuge of a protectionist.


113 posted on 09/07/2004 5:02:47 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

Presumably, this has to pass Congress. If so, it has to be stopped the minute it arrives on Capitol Hill. Does anyone remember the effect of the phone/e-mail campaign for disclouse of the check-bouncers in 1992 had? It can be done if patriots organize against the free traitors.


114 posted on 09/08/2004 6:32:12 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

Yea. Another ruse to somehow equate "free trade" with "freedom". And as we now know, FTAA is another twist in the vice put upon the American People by the Nephilim who hold the reins of government. As it is not too difficult to name names, I'll leave that part out for now.


115 posted on 09/09/2004 6:05:09 PM PDT by BrucefromMtVernon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: backtothestreets

Someone I work with asked me about this last week. I think he wears tinfoil sometimes.


116 posted on 09/09/2004 6:12:03 PM PDT by SeeRushToldU_So (Shut up and sing. I don't care what you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

I need some help from you guys. I want to get Savage or someone like him to talk about the FTAA on the radio. Will you guys help me in e-mailing Savage and any other talk radio host you can think of? I doubt Hannity would care and probably the same with Ann Coulter, I love her but she never talks about immigration. We REALLY need to get the word out fast or this will pass under our nose!! I have tried e-mailing Savage but who knows if he even reads them. If someone could call his show or e-mail him maybe one of us can get through.


117 posted on 09/16/2004 8:58:17 PM PDT by EvilRightWingRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Brian Allen

ping


118 posted on 07/28/2006 11:28:34 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Illegal immigration Control and US Border Security - The jobs George W. Bush refuses to do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson