Skip to comments.Dozens of House Republicans object to gay rights language in NAFTA replacement deal
Posted on 11/18/2018 12:03:35 PM PST by Rusty0604
A group of 45 House Republican lawmakers wrote President Trump Friday stating that they were "deeply concerned" by the inclusion of "sexual orientation and and gender identity language" in the U.S.-Mexico-Canada-Agreement on trade.
The representatives said the inclusion was "inappropriate and insulting to our national sovereignty" and urged Trump to remove the language.
The letter suggests the president may loose some key Republican support when the deal, which would replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, comes before before Congress for approval next year.
"A trade agreement is no place for the adoption of social policy," the GOP lawmakers wrote, adding, "It sets a dangerous precedent for courts and future administrations to build on."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
This is how the dems cause societal decay.
Trump is morphing, I’m afraid.
homosexuality is an aggressive political movement.
“”A trade agreement is no place for the adoption of social policy,”
Here we go....
Sexual disorientation is indicative of one’s moral character, thus is always to be considered in hiring.
Since we are all “equal” now, one would assume that we wouldn’t need social language in any document, or any sign because... We’re all “equal” so you don’t have to call somebody out and make them special since we’re all “equal.” Right?
He isn't morphing. He has always been like this.
“A trade agreement is no place for the adoption of social policy,”
I totally agree
Who will enforce this requirement on the Us? An international bureaucracy? I thought Trump was for sovereignty and nationalism? aDid somebody sneak this mandate into the agreement without Trumpsknowledge?
Opening for many more lawsuits.
We need to perform some RINO-plasty.
They don’t call it the Gaystapo for nothing.
Oh no. Not Trump. He is never wrong.
It would be interesting to know who on the American side agreed to this item, or even initiated its inclusion.
What lawmakers included the pro-LGBT language, and was this language included before the elections?
Since the House is controlled by career RINOs, didnt career RINOs that patriots failed to get rid of in the election probably approve the inclusion of the language?
Patriots are reminded that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to deal with LGBT issues.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
Noting that I have not seen the language in question, I wouldnt be surprised if it effectively violates the Constitutions prohibition of protected / privileged classes by the federal government.
"Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States [emphasis added]: And no person holding any office or profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."
The vote-seeking career lawmakers who approved of the language need to be charged with treason imo, treason for attempting to unconstitutionally expand the already unconstitutionally big federal governments powers.
Everyone has special rights except white straight men.
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.