[gondramB]

I am under the impression that this is a treaty requirement.

[em2vn]

There isn’t a treaty involved.

[Colorado Buckeye]

I am under the impression that this is a treaty requirement.

Note that the House vote was 234-200 and the Senate vote was 61-38.

A treaty requires no House concurrence but does require the concurrence of 2/3s of the Senators "present." [U. S. Constitution - Article II; Section 2].

Two-thirds of the Senate present for the NAFTA vote did not concur. The Bill was passed but no treaty was authorized.

NAFTA is not a treaty.

NAFTA has the force of law. As with any law, it can be changed or abolished with the passage of another law.

---

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103^rd Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R.3450 )
Vote Number:	395	Vote Date:	November 20, 1993, 07:28 PM
Required For Majority:	1/2	Vote Result:	Bill Passed
Measure Number:	H.R. 3450
Measure Title:	A bill to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	61
	NAYs	38
	Not Voting	1

More details on Senate vote here: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote:

---

U. S. House FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 575

(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)
      H R 3450      RECORDED VOTE      17-Nov-1993      10:36 PM
      QUESTION:  On Passage
      BILL TITLE: NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Democratic	102	156
Republican	132	43
Independent		1
TOTALS	234	200

More details on the House vote here: Final Vote Results for Roll Call 575

---

[DesScorp]

“I am under the impression that this is a treaty requirement.”

It IS treaty requirement, a treaty signed into law overwhelmingly. Which is why this is a symbolic vote...the Senate knows SCOTUS will do their dirty work for them and overturn it. Meanwhile, they get to look tough.

Too many people here are equating illegal immigration with free trade...which isn’t about people, but goods and services, regulated by the rule of law. NAFTA never authorized increased legal immigration rates, let alone illegal immigration.

[editor-surveyor]

"I am under the impression that this is a treaty requirement."

NAFTA is not a treaty. Treaties require a 2/3 vote in the senate. There is no enforceable obligation in NAFTA under our constitution.

[Hornet19]

NAFTA is not a treaty, it’s merely an agreement...and a bad one at that.

[Paul Ross]

I am under the impression that this is a treaty requirement.

NAFTA is not a TREATY. It is not the "Supreme Law of the Land". It merely was a Congressional authorization, which had no hope of passing as a treaty, hence Xlinton sneaked it through as an agreement, a mere Congressional enactment...which cannot supersede State law. Or impose an extra-Constitutional juridical requirement that trumps U.S. review, or Panels which can impose "fines" on the people of the United States for failing to let the de facto unregulated and unsafe Mexican vehicles roam across the borders and throughout our country...

All Congress needs to do to put this all to rest is simply revoke NAFTA by Majority Vote...and DEFUND the Executive Branch enablements of it.