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

To: Carry_Okie
This isn't a treaty; it's a "trade agreement." Trade agreements are (supposedly) not treaties. Thus NAFTA did not requrire the 2/3 vote of senators present, which is bogus on the face of it.

It seems your're right. NAFTA only passed 61-38. Thanks for informing me to this. I support free trade, but not through ignoring the Constitution.

18 posted on 02/18/2005 6:03:53 PM PST by JohnBDay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: JohnBDay
No matter how NAFTA passed, it's not a treaty, the only law which constitutes the "supreme law of the land."

Trade agreements presuppose to set up adjudication mechanisms that are capable of dictating changes in US law, and thus function as treaties. Neither the President nor the Congress are empowered by the Constitution to agree to treaties or trade agreements that exceed the powers granted by the Constitution. Such we have already seen. It is unconstitutional delegation of legislative and adjudicative powers tantamount to an amendment of the Constitution itself.

The use of international law and the courts to dilute Constitutional protection of citizens' rights was cleary that document's most egregious flaw. The method of treaty ratification was the principal tool, as was carefully papered over by Hamilton in Federalist 75.

24 posted on 02/18/2005 6:15:00 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

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