Skip to comments.Donít Try to Blackmail Us on Nafta, Mr. President
Posted on 05/11/2018 5:23:40 AM PDT by reaganaut1
The Trump administration will soon unveil a new North American Free Trade Agreement. U.S. trade negotiators have sought, among other things, to limit its duration, impose new domestic content requirements on certain products, and weaken investor legal protections. Even with these protectionist features, congressional Democrats are unlikely to vote for President Trumps Nafta 2.0. He will need the support of pro-trade Republicans like me to ensure passage of any new agreement.
To pressure us into voting for an agreement that diminishes free trade, some in the administration suggest offering a grim choice: either approve a diminished Nafta, or the president will unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the existing Nafta, leaving no Nafta at all.
If presented with this ultimatum, I will vote no, urge my colleagues to do likewise, and oppose any effort by the administration to withdraw unilaterally. Pulling out of Nafta by executive fiat would be economically harmful and unconstitutional.
The Framers reserved trade policy for Congress, which has the express authority to establish tariffs and regulate commerce with foreign nations. A president who unilaterally withdrew from Nafta would be directly regulating foreign commerce, imposing significant disruptions on the economy, and infringing on Congresss status as a coequal branch of government.
There have been instances when presidents have unilaterally terminated treaties. They claimed to be using significant inherent and implied powers on international affairs. But as Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in a 2015 decision, these executive powers arent unbounded. And none of the handful of treaties that have been terminated unilaterally were principally commercial in nature.
Unilateral executive withdrawal would amount to the president creating new law by himself. Nafta became operative when Congress passed implementing legislation in 1993.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
“He will need the support of pro-trade Republicans like me..”
Shut up and go away, nobody needs you.
I’m going to support Toomey over whatever dope the Dems put up, but this is so tone-deaf for a Pennsylvania politician in an election year. And Toomey always seems to be picking the wrong battles. He is conservative on a lot of things but the only time you see him in the news is when he’s on his high horse about some liberal issue that he supports or where he’s going against Trump.
NAFTA DESERVES to be diminished, from its present sweeping terms that work to the overall disadvantage of the interests of the United States. Keep in mind that neither Canada nor Mexico is a part of the United States, but separate and sovereign countries, and especially FOREIGN. Different laws, different basis to their legal codes, and sometimes subtle but highly divisive interpretations of civil conduct.
Mixing oil and water is a tricky proposition.
[I think we should stop putting up links that cause us to pay to read them. This good intention becomes click bait for advertising the site. Wall Street Journal should be the first to go.]
Tariffs are Patriot candy.
Suddenly they want to use constitutional treaty rules. Where were these idiots when the Iran treaty was violating the constitution?
Toomey has his orders
He is trying to protect a frightened Pennsylvania company making products in Mexico
Ha ha. You lose. Where are you globalist Free Traders going to go?
I remember when Toomey was “our guy”.
Toomey is a dufus.
The Iran deal was never voted on by Congress. No problem for Trump to unilaterally kill it. NAFTA (no matter what you think of it) WAS. Congress needs to vote on the changes, and it will. Unlike Obama, Trump proceeds in a constitutional manner.
Mr. “Universal Background Checks” speaks.
I give you the GOPe.
The minute the Democrats figure out a way to nominate a candidate who is not insane, this guy is toast.
Im sure he will change his toom when Trump does a mega rally in his district.
Barletta's Conservative Review score is 43%.
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.