[Ben Ficklin]

PBS Frontline did a show on this issue a while back in which they were pointing to the fact that the real implication is the subservience of National Soveriegnty to a trade agreement.

In addition to the case of CA and MTBE, Fontline also examined a similar case in which a US company bought an abandoned mfg facility in Mexico to restart. With Mexican federal permits in hand and assurances that local permits were a mere formality, the US company made the purchase. The Mexican state govt denied them the permits and it ended up in court with the US company collecting damages.

Frontline pointed out that when the language/wording of NAFTA was being devised, US FedGov employed a particular Washington law firm to do a great deal of the work. It is the same law firm that is now litigating these cases.

[Greybird]

[...] the real implication is the subservience of National Sovereignty to a trade agreement.

And are you calling for upholding Gov. Gray "I Fundraise 12 Hours a Day" Davis's influence-peddling? In the name of national sovereignty?

GO METHANEX!

[Shermy]

You're right. This is the first big attack on our sovreignty by NAFTA. Some people are so blinded by their distaste for this guy Davis they don't see the more important Constitutional issues.

[Shermy]

BTW, the spin in this article, Davis took a bribe, is unrelated to NAFTA chapter 11.