WTO rules against Canada in lumber feud with United States

AFP ^ | 04/03/06

[Alberta's Child]

It's actually quite simple. If the "illegal Canadian practices" in question were the primary cause of these business failures in the U.S. lumber industry, then why didn't any of the remedies imposed by the U.S. government that were aimed at addressing the problem (i.e., the initial imposition of a 9% tariff and subsequent increases to 19% and then 28%) actually work? That seems simple enough.

As you consider this, you should understand that the U.S. stance in the softwood lumber dispute actually has nothing to do with protecting the U.S. lumber industry. In fact, it actually has virtually nothing to do with lumber at all -- except insofar as it effectively enhances the profitability of lumber producers in key GOP strongholds like Georgia and North Carolina.

[albertabound]

You seem to want an arguement. I just posted some info to outline the difference between a WTO ruling and a NAFTA ruling.
As is the norm in these disputes each side is convinced god is on his side. So why do you keep bringing up this Pride bullshit.

[Mase]

It never ceases to amaze me that any American would defend this unconstitutional supranational organization.

Yet the Uruguay round of GATT passed both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority. It never ceases to amaze me that someone could think that this vote was unconstitutional and that they're all traitors for representing the wishes of their constituencies. I'm still waiting for you to show us any settled litigation showing GATT to be unconstitutional. It's been more than 10 years now. You'd think some protectionist would have challenged it by now.

[hedgetrimmer]

they're all traitors for representing the wishes of their constituencies

Yes you can be a traitor and vote for the wishes of your constituencies. Especially if the constituency is asking you to approve unconstitutional legislation.

[expat_panama]

waiting for you to show us any settled litigation showing GATT to be unconstitutional.

This a contrast of incompatible logic systems.  One says that constitutionality is something that must be proven in say, a court of law.   The other says that trade agreements are unconstitutional because well, they just are!