Posted on 07/29/2005 10:51:52 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
All of your comment was thought provoking, but I have a hard time accepting the part above. I work everyday to help people of all classes to join "the investment class!" Over half of Americans are already in "the investment class" in some manner or other. I'm working to wipe out said "class warfare!"
I'm short on time right now so I'll try to reply to your sincere and thoughtful comment sooner, or later.
Akaka (D-HI) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Harkin (D-IA) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kennedy (D-MA) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Mikulski (D-MD) Obama (D-IL) Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI)
Here's a post on another thread for you to read--
You are right to note that this would appear to be a treaty, and it will be abided by as if it were, but they have not actually called it a treaty.
Why? Because then they HAVE to submit it to the U.S. Senate for a two-thirds vote. And why do you think the Founders insisted on the two-thirds requirement for treaties? Because treaties should be widely accepted across the nation, not by a narrow doctrinnaire segment or "sectional" division amongst the States. The fact that over 50% of the populace was opposed to the CAFTA Agreement makes it clear that in fact we have a divided nation, and that the 2/3rds requirement would likely have prevented the unconstitutional act from passage in the first place, despite a President, in express violation of his oathe of office, committed to implementing it come hell or high water.
The Act represents an unconstitutional excess delegation. And it was unconstitutionally passed, since, as you note, it should be classed as a treaty. A truly Supreme Court would rule it so. In former days, before the Court Packing scheme, the high court would have done so, as they did with Schechter and Panama cases wherein the New Deal programs were challenged successfully and struck down...greatly angering FDR and the Democrats who had a 2/3rds senate and house majority. Although Schechter and Panama's holdings have never been reversed, and are still the official law of the land, they have not been applied since to strike down governmental programs. The Court has lacked the judicial backbone and integrity to challenge these excess delegations since. And I don't recall any test of the unconstitional Treaties that don't go by their proper names, but call themselves "agreements." If they were, a court with integrity would be forced by our Constitution to strike down GATT, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and anything like them.
If you are for the constitution, and still for these agreements...you have an irreconcilable conflict. Choose this day, whom ye would serve.
Another element of their unconstitutionality is their asserting that the International trade panels for dispute resolution, have exclusive, i.e., supreme, jurisdiction. One of the express elements of the U.S. Constitution is that Congress can not make a higher court than the U.S. Supreme Court. By placing jurisdiction in these trade matters in the international tribunal, and excluding the U.S. Supreme Court from jurisdiction, the CAFTA act, which also lets not just CAFTA disputants, but also NAFTA and WTO disputes into this alternate exclusive adjudication process...in violation of our Constitution. This evasion of our courts...is an evasion of the Power of the People to rule our own affairs...and a disengenous one at that. The advocates say that we can always reassert ourselves. Right, we can always get our pitchforks and reassert ourselves. The liberals behind this are counting on a cowed populace that won't rebel, or be able to overwhelm their special-interest backed "super-party". The super-party being behind both Republicrats and Democans. The super-party is not for the People.
And remember the whole purpose for the U.S. Constitution was to build the nation, not destroy it:
"We the People, of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union..."
267 posted on 08/04/2005 9:27:04 AM PDT by Paul Ross (Strict Constructionist Definition=Someone who doesn't hallucinate when reading the Constitution)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1455990/posts?page=267
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.