Posted on 06/19/2006 7:37:30 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.
Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.
On Aug. 9, 2005, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by Methanex Corp., a Canadian methanol producer challenging California laws that regulate against the gasoline additive MTBE. The additive MTBE was introduced into gasoline to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions. California regulations restricted the use of MTBE after the additive was found to contaminate drinking water and produce a health hazard. Had the case been decided differently, California’s MTBE regulations would have been overturned and U.S. taxpayers forced to pay Methanex millions in damages.
While this case was decided favorably to U.S. laws, we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about “hate crimes” legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.
Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.” Again, we have abundant proof that Congress is unbelievably lax when it comes to something as fundamental as reading or understanding the complex laws our elected legislators typically pass.
Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled “Building a North American Community” was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.
The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010. As the CFR report details on page 22:
The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.
Robert Pastor of American University, the vice chairman of the CFR task force report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for the creation of a North American Union “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” Pastor understands that a “permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” Notice, Pastor says nothing about U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.
When it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, Pastor’s solution is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens. In his testimony to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005, Pastor made this exact argument: “Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths.”
Even Pastor worries about the potential for North American Unions to overturn U.S. laws that he likes. Regarding environmental laws, Pastor’s testimony to the Trilateral Commission in November 2002 was clear on this point: “Some narrowing or clarification of the scope of Chapter 11 panels on foreign investment is also needed to permit the erosion of environmental rules.” Evidently it did not occur to Pastor that the way to achieve the protection he sought was to leave the sovereignty of U.S. and the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court intact.
The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place a behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input, that should provide the rules by which any NAFTA or NAU court would examine when adjudicating NAU trade disputes. The June 2005 report by the SPP working groups organized in the U.S. Department of Commerce, clearly states the goal:
We will develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework by 2007 to support and enhance existing, as well as encourage new cooperation among regulators, including at the outset of the regulatory process.
We wonder if the Bush Administration intends to present the Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework now being constructed by SPP.gov to Congress for review in 2007, or will the administration simply continue along the path of knitting together the new NAU regional governmental structure behind closed doors by executive fiat? Ms. Word affirms that the membership of the various SPP working group committees has not been published. Nor have the many memorandums of understanding and other trilateral agreements created by these SPP working groups been published, not even on the Internet.
I-69 and so does my wife.
Maybe it works the other way? We challenge THEIR laws to allow free speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada and Mexico?
I hope your partners are OK with you two being married. :-)
Someone posted the actual press release from Prof. Corsi's publisher (maybe thinking it was another news article) on another NAU thread. It was frightening to compare it to the World Net Daily article it spawned.
That's why we should never surrender our guns. Keep America strong and keep Government honest. That's in the Constitution. Read it!!!
"President Bush would never sell this country out. Don't even think about mentioning immigration."
Sorry, but already has....or is in the process as we speak.
I won't mention immigration, because what policy do we actually have? It may be really tough to emigrate here if you're European but it's REAL easy if you're from the middle east or from Mexico.
I think it was just an attempt to get the article reposted. Notice that they aren't content to have just one thread.
Sorry, all my time right now is being used up on studying Chemtrails and the Bermuda Triangle. So many conspiracies, so little time...
The question is: -- can there be law/treaties which are inconsistent with the constitution?
Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership? To petition against illegal immigration, etc?
"-- in Pursuance thereof --" is the operative phrase.
Any law or treaty that was repugnant to our Constitutions principles would be null & void. [see Marbury]
I've been in this discussion before. I agree with you whole heartedly, however, that is only valid if we make the SCOTUS enforce the law. That does not seem to happen much lately. It also hasn't been the case for many years with regard to treaties.
Practically every dispute on FR boils down to this same question: -- can government [at any level] enact or enforce laws [or treaties] that infringe on our basic rights to life, liberty, or property?
The answer of course is no.. -- What is truly amazing is how many here find 'conservative' ways to dispute that point.
One of my favorite quotes came from a friend of mine who used to be US Undersecretary of Commerce. She said: "Those who say that they don't believe in conspiracy theories have obviously never worked in government!"
As much as all of this sounds completely far-fetched, much of the same strategy has already been accomplished in Europe with the EU -- and that was also "unthinkable" 20 years ago.
However, having said that -- it seems to me that truly debating this issue requires a whole lot more homework on all our parts, both into the NAU and into the rights of the president and/or Congress to supercede the Consitution. Because if there is any substance to this, it could be the most important issue we ever debate. If not, it isn't worth losing a night's sleep over!
That kind of stuff used to be frowned-upon, but it is not any longer. I've come across the attitude of "the more a thread gets posted/bumped the better" before (some folks think that it gets "the word out"). Usually, those are the same folks that think voting Third Party makes a difference, and are unwilling to make the effort to split-off voters from the Dems by posting elsewhere than FR.
The difference being, of course, that it's pretty tough to insist that Europe's currency or economic union was done in secret.
Even without the Second Amendment, the right to self-defense is so basic that only a tyrant would suppose it was not an non-enumerated right.
You and your friends must want folks to read these threads since you consistently bump them to the top. You guys have helped to keep the discussion going.
How true. I lay awake at night in the fear that I may have made a 0.0001% difference in some 3P candidate's vote total, or caused someone to rush out and bury a 20' shipping container full of SPAM and BB's in his backyard.
I always come back to the fact that Bush Sr. was the first president to use the phrase "new world order" in public.
Carolyn
I haven't seen anyone of like stature here discuss the NAU -- just a couple of fringe academic types and one Bushwacking Congressman.
They have learned their Marxist/Soviet propaganda and debating tactics well.
My apologies :)
I decided to consult a Ouija board and a Magic 8 ball to see what our next course of action should be.
I think that we should enact a law outlawing all McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's for Taco Bells :)
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.