North American Union Threatens U.S. Sovereignty

HumanEventsOnline ^ | Aug 21, 2006 | Alan Caruba

[Toddsterpatriot]

Poor little hedgetrimmer. Says she's for smaller government, pushes for more government. Says she's a conservative, constantly sides with leftists (and Communists).

[1rudeboy]

Interestingly enough, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the question in 2001, I believe. [I'd really like to thank all the protectionist/isolationist True Conservatives on this website, without whose never-ending canards my discovery of this case would have been impossible]. According to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Fast-Track Authority is constitutional.

[hedgetrimmer]

It appears that link is broken. Why don't you tell me the source so I can fix it?

[hedgetrimmer]

They dismissed it, they didn't rule that it was constitutional.

[Mase]

Says she's a conservative, constantly sides with leftists (and Communists).

She regularly uses CISPES and Public Citizen as sources. Maybe this is the "face" they're referring to when the protectionists speak about capitalism with a face.

[Mase]

Nice find. I thought "Fast Track" had to have been challenged at some time during the past 32 years. Unfortunately, I doubt a court decision will deter the "true conservatives" here at FR from continuing to contend that all trade agreements (and treaties for that matter) are unconstitutional.

[1rudeboy]

Correct, after a fashion. The 11th Circuit rejected the argument that Fast Track is unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court declined to visit the issue.

[1rudeboy]

What's truly funny is, like a Weeble, she'll be back to her old tricks soon enough . . . the funny part is that the only people that believe that Nader-like stuff to be true are on her own side.

[Mase]

So true. No doubt that fact will be lost on the lot of them.

They'll be gathering shortly for Corsi's latest tirade over here

[hedgetrimmer]

No they didn't.

They said they can't tell when an agreement is significant enough to qualify as a "treaty", therefore they dimissed the question as not appropriate for judicial consideration.

They did NOT reject the argument that Fast Track is unconstitional.

[1rudeboy]

Why don't you tell me the source so I can fix it?

Toward a North American Union
Some Guy’s Bunker in Idaho ^ | August 18, 2006 | Patrick Wood

Posted on 08/19/2006 8:25:29 PM CDT by hedgetrimmer

[1rudeboy]

They said they can't tell when an agreement is significant enough to qualify as a "treaty", therefore they dimissed the question as not appropriate for judicial consideration.

Again, after a fashion. The court said that the apellants failed to prove their case (that Fast Track is unconsitutional).

[hedgetrimmer]

So I quoted an article on Freerepublic. Big deal.

[1rudeboy]

You quoted Public Citizen, from a thread you posted less than two days ago. [chuckle]

[hedgetrimmer]

You're usually so picky.

You said I quoted Some Guy’s Bunker in Idaho

[nopardons]

The tinfoil crowd is out in force, I see; foaming at the mouth and fulminating about a topic they know nothing at all about and understand even less.

[AmishDude]

Well, I hate to say it, but there you go again.

[nopardons]

About six decades ago, people used to joke that a monkey, locked in a room, with paints, canvases, and brushes, could produce a masterpiece, that would surpass any modern painting. Some people have said the same thing about a band of monkeys and typewriters, being able to eventually turning out work rivaling Shakespeare.

With this black helicopter/tinfoil crap, all the articles sound the same, because they all just write the same article, using the fame tinfoil parameters and words. It's just blame whatever of the Tri-lats, the Buildyourownburdgers, CFR, and throw in Skull and Bones and the Masons, for good measure and the gullible, who feel powerless, WILL not onl;y drink the swill, but proclaim it MANNA FROM GOD.

Facts? The don't need no stinkin' facts.

[nopardons]

BOOOOO !

[nopardons]

I think that she's hit a new all time low and I didn't think that possible. LOL