North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

Human Events Online ^ | Jun 19, 2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[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.

[hedgetrimmer]

I have never seen anyone discuss how the US, a nation which was founded on the principle of individual freedoms given to man as Divine Rights, can harmonize its laws and regulations with a socialist, oligarchical or ultra multicultural / PC country...and still retain the character and scope of those freedoms...as enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and our Constitution.

Because it can't be done.

What we were given by our founding fathers is not commonplace...it is unique.

That's why we must be 'globalized'. Now, sit down and take your medicine /sarc

[ZULU]

Get over it.

Bush was good on terrorism, probably good on judges, but in the final analysis, the buck controls his foreign policy in the economic sphere, not what is best for America.

Bush is the Conservative President that wasn't. He's a moderate with liberal social leanings.

I as a conservative am extremely disappointed with his actions on illegals, his continuous defiance of the border and the immigration laws he is sworn to uphold, and the overwhelming public opinion on illegals and amnesty. I am suspicious of his actions involving foreign trade and trade relations.

The ONLY thing which can save the Congress for us in 2006 is even MORE inept actions by the crypto-Bolsheviks in the Democrat Party. But we can't rely on their ineptitude for ever. Eventually they will dredger up a Svengali like Bill Clinton to hoodwink the public and the Republicans will be out in the cold again because they have ignored - for the most part - their conservative base.

Did I have a choice in 2000 and 2004? No. Would Kerry or Gore have been better? No way. But that doesn't mean I have to support everything Bush says and does and I don't.

[lepton]

"any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" is a very dangerous phrase

if interpreted in certain ways. If so, does it not follow that there can be treaties which are inconsistent with the constitutional terms? Could they by treaty take away our right to gun ownership? To petition against illegal immigration, etc?

Treaties can be inconsistant with State Constitutions and over-rule them, yes.

[Dat Mon]

"Now, sit down and take your medicine /sarc"

Reading some of the silliness on this and other threads...I think maybe Ill make my medicine at least 90 proof!

[Reagan Man]

You haven't posted in awhile. Any comments on the views expressed by some FReepers on your article?

[hedgetrimmer]

There it is again!

[american spirit]

Well, I do agree most folks working in gov't. aren't that bright but to me it makes them very pliable as far as doing the bidding of a select few leaders without questioning the legal or constitutional ramifications of their actions.

Sure, there's been an unending debate about theories of all sorts regarding the actions of our fedgov......some make sense while others just are unexplainable.

For example, I dare anyone to compare the Constitution vs. the Communist Manifesto and convince me the fedgov's style of governance is not closer to the CM than the Const?

Why has there not been a huge outcry from various watchdog groups across the country over the actions (or inaction) of various fedgov agencies during the WTC1 bombing in '93 or OKC when it's a forgone conclusion that there was definite prior knowledge among certain "connected" people of these impending events?

How do we have agencies like the vaunted Homeland Security having no problem shaking down gray-haired white folks in airports but there is federal mandate to completely seal our
borders from any number when rapsists, murderers, thieves, etc. from entering this country illegally? Then we have fedgov and state agencies falling all over themselves to give these illegals benefits totalling tens of billions of $ per year while at the same time borrowing approx. two billion a from foreigners just to run the gov't?.......call it what you will but in my mind we're in the midst of comitting national suicide.......not a theory, just a fact.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're not a fool.....it's just the Alinsky Method that makes you look like one. Right!!!!

[Sandy]

but I was hoping some legal eagle would have a case in mind that the court actually agreed with that interpretation as well.
Oh well, I gusss I'll live with the mystery...

From Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957):

At the time of Mrs. Covert's alleged offense, an executive agreement was in effect between the United States and Great Britain which permitted United States' military courts to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over offenses committed in Great Britain by American servicemen or their dependents. For its part, the United States agreed that these military courts would be willing and able to try and to punish all offenses against the laws of Great Britain by such persons. In all material respects, the same situation existed in Japan when Mrs. Smith killed her husband. Even though a court-martial does not give an accused trial by jury and other Bill of Rights protections, the Government contends that Art. 2 (11) of the UCMJ, insofar as it provides for the military trial of dependents accompanying the armed forces in Great Britain and Japan, can be sustained as legislation which is necessary and proper to carry out the United States' obligations under the international agreements made with those countries. The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. [emphasis mine]

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . . ."

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. ... It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition - to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined. [emphasis mine]

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 , it declared:

"The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent."

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

Read the whole thing.

[Smartass]

 

 

Excerpts from the titled thread...

"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."

***********

Like many contracts and/or agreements, insurance policies etc., NAFTA has a suggested arbitration first for dispute resolution, however, does not preclude taking one's claim into a court of law.

* From what I've read and understand, the country in which a dispute has occurred would naturally be the starting point, and if not settled, could eventually end up in a court of law in that same country.

* A lawsuit would have to be filed in the country where the dispute occurred.

* For starters, the preferred, and most economical and speediest method would be arbitration, because some courts, especially in the U.S. might not take a case, if arbitration is written into an agreement, such as the case in NAFTA.. A dispute would first have to heard in arbitration.

* NAFTA has a time limit or agreement/staute of limitations to file a disputed claim.

* Disputes are heard by a panel of three appointed arbitrators.

* The Secretariate of each involved country (usually two) appoint one arbitrator.

* The third arbitrator is agreed upon by the two parties in the dispute.

* The three panel of arbitrators hear the dispute and can dismiss, or settle. If the dispute is not settled to a persons liking, they can then take their decision into a court within the country where the dispute occurred.

* Because trade usually involves goods and commodities, NAFTA does not exclude a country's criminal and/or civil statutes. To avoid court precedential rulings, IMO, I would imagine NAFTA would want to settle disputes in an equitable manner to not have the agreement mired in litigation.

* Would there be predjudice or conflict of interest in a foreign court of law...your guess is as good as mine. IMO, I would trust Canadian and U.S. courts before Mexican law.

 

The downside of Chapter 11:

"Another contentious issue is the impact of "Chapter 11", which allows corporations to sue "Parties" (the definition of which, includes governments) in the NAFTA region for compensation when actions taken by those Parties have adversely affected their investments. This chapter gives corporations the power to enforce their rights, regardless of national, state and local sovereignty."

"This chapter has been invoked in cases where governments have passed laws or regulations with intent to protect their constiuents, that also impact a corporation's bottom line. Language in the chapter defining its scope states that it cannot be used to "prevent a Party from providing a service or performing a function such as law enforcement, correctional services, income security or insurance, social security or insurance, social welfare, public education, public training, health, and child care, in a manner that is not inconsistent with this Chapter. "

"This chapter does not, however, appear to specifically protect or observe the potential legitimacy of environmental laws enacted to protect; it seems to indicate that NAFTA litigation interprets all such laws solely in terms of their financial impact."

"For example Methanex, a Canadian corporation, filed a US$970 million suit against the United States, claiming that a Californian ban on MTBE, a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurtful to the corporation's sales of methanol. "

"In another case Metalclad, an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after the latter passed regulations banning the hazardous waste landfill it intended to construct in El Llano, Aguascalientes."

"Further, it has been argued that the chapter benefits the interests of Canadian and American corporations disproportionately more than Mexican businesses, which often lack the resources to pursue a suit against the much wealthier states."

"It has been a longtime fear of some Canadians that this provision gives large U.S. companies too much power. There was one case where a natural gas company in Nova Scotia which pumped from Sable Island wanted to sell cheaper gas to residents in the neighboring New Brunswick (both Canadian provinces), but threats of a lawsuit over Chapter 11 stopped these plans in their tracks."

IMO, like many other hastely passed bills and acts, the complex provisions of NAFTA was not debated enough by our lawmakers. Remember, NAFTA was signed into law by William Jefferson Clinton, the 42^nd president of the United States, with the support of a democrat controlled congress. Moreover, to many in congress remained to silent, and let the NAFTA wind blow where it will.   Like any agreement, NAFTA can be revisited and retuned, or scrapped...which I doubt.

 

 

 

[LucyT]

Crosslinked:

North America’s SuperCorridor {Immigration Reform will never happen}

[on Lara Ingrahms{sp} show today that Bush and Clinton havebeen working on this together and that Mexico's Foxx and the PM in Canada are already on board you want border security it aint gonna happen from whats been told.

Also heard by 2020 Were going to a new currency like the Euro ... ]

[they have already decided upon breaking the US into regions with regional governors.

Looks like doing it by creating artificial borders, i.e., roadways is quite efficient.]

2 posted on 06/19/2006 4:01:24 PM MDT by OpusatFR

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1652068/posts

[Altura Ct.]

Lou Dobbs just interviewed Frank LoBiondo of NJ. Topic was control of American (meaning US) airlines and to an extent American airspace. How can anybody deny the globalization effort? Not even considering 9-11. I can't believe that such a thing is even discussed let alone considered?? To me that is completely treasonous. Is there a whole generation of people who basically think it is OK? What am I missing here?

[Czar]

Just sounds simply ideal, doesn't it?

[1rudeboy]

British Airways controls our airspace when it flies into JFK? I suppose you're right, what's the point of having a military?

[hedgetrimmer]

Is there a whole generation of people who basically think it is OK?

Its a relative few, but they are in the highest seats of power in our government.

[Altura Ct.]

You seriously ask that question after 911?

[Arizona Carolyn]

None of us like to admit we were wrong about how conservative this President was. It breaks my heart to say it, but we were (wrong) and the only thing that drives him, isn't the adoration of his public, but the businessmen who are running this country and could care less what we, the voters, want.

He gave us clues from the beginning, it's something many people missed at the time. Since the last election it's been full steam ahead on a predetermined path. It appears, to me. the administration wants the NAU completed by 2008 (or to an irrevocable point).

BTW... the alternatives were poor and probably would have done the same thing and I'm not certain they would have been as adamant in protecting us, overseas, from al Qaeda...

[1rudeboy]

Absolutely. Did I fall asleep and foreign carriers are now banned in the U.S.? Or did the 9/11 hijackers hijack some other airlines other than American and United?

[Arizona Carolyn]

What can we do when our representative ignore us... I just heard today that they told us one thing on the Dubai Ports deal and quietly went around it in committee (at the Presidents behest)... so how are we to trust anyone when they just keep outright s@rewing us at every turn?

[Altura Ct.]

I'm sorry what is your point? Are you saying you don't care who controls the airlines? I not sure what you are saying?