Nafta Tribunals Stir U.S. Worries

The New York Times ^ | April 18, 2004 | ADAM LIPTAK

[RickGolden]

Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the Massachusetts is NOT from America

[neutrino]

Let's not get too hysterical, shall we?

Perhaps it is past time to get emotionally involved.

These tribunals only apply to NAFTA trade cases, and congress can abrogate them at any time.

Um-hmm. But they won't unless lots of people get "hysterical", now, will they?

For that matter, the courts could do the same, foreign policy or treaties notwithstanding.

Apparently not. Per the article, a NAFTA tribunal can continue a case after a state and the U.S. Supreme court made their decisions. (Yes, I know, the U.S. Supreme court declined to hear the case.)

Personally, I think the treaty should be amended so that only jurists from the member nations are included.

I have a better idea. Get rid of NAFTA.

[RickGolden]

Justice Breyer: U. S. Constitution should be subordinated to international will
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/941589/posts

[neutrino]

Thanks for the ping!

Disturbing times we live in, my FRiend.

[gitmo]

"When we debated Nafta," Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in 2002, "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."

If you didn't know "how hight this provision would play out", then wouldn't it have been prudent to explore the possibilities before approving the treaty? Or do you only discuss the parts you're comfortable with?

[RickGolden]

Judicial Coup d'Etat

Friday, September 19, 2003
By Bill O'Reilly
This is very important and somewhat repetitive and I'm sorry about that, but again it's very important.



There is a move in the United States to change the country. The ACLU (search) is hooking up with a number of liberal judges to declare things that they don't like as unconstitutional.

Now, a judge can declare anything unconstitutional -- you can interpret the words of the founders in many different ways -- but the will of the people has always been the driving force behind policy in America.

This is changing and here's the best example I can give you. According to a Gallup Poll, 77 percent of Americans do not object to displaying the Ten Commandments in a courtroom.

However, as we know, a federal court has ruled the display unconstitutional. So it is not the will of the people that the judges are concerned about and it's also not prior history, as the Ten Commandments have been displayed in public forums for more than 200 years.

In my upcoming book, Who's Looking Out for You, I provide rock-solid proof that the Founding Fathers wanted spirituality incorporated into public policy -- that is, they wanted a definite morality right and wrong to be considered in policy matters.

Now the ACLU and some judges are hell bent -- pardon the pun -- on changing that and circumventing the will of the people.

Item: the California recall (search). Three liberal judges override the will of 2 million Californians.

Item: the San Francisco homeless initiative. One far-left judge tells citizens their votes about not providing cash to the homeless don't count.

Item: a Massachusetts judge throws out a criminal case against a man caught with two pounds of cocaine because the judge doesn't like the cop who made the arrest -- we'll deal with that story in a few moments.

Item: a liberal federal judge in San Diego says the Boy Scouts (search) are a religious organization and no town can do business with them.

I could give you hundreds of other examples, including judges taking the words "Christmas vacation" off school calendars, even though Christmas is a federal holiday, approved by Congress.

It is obvious, ladies and gentlemen, that we the people are being directly attacked by secularists who want to change this country. They know they can't do it in the voting booth, so they are going to do it using the courts.

This is no less than a potential coup d'etat and you should know about it. Next to the war on terror, this is the most important story the U.S. has seen in decades.

[John Lenin]

Ignorance is nop excuse. Our Congress has sold us out to the globalists and they could care less what we think about it.

[ovrtaxt]

Thank you Comrade Clinton

And the Republican congress that passed it. Morons!

[Prince Charles]

Anti-NAFTA bump.

[Biblebelter]

We are kidding ourselves if we think that we are actually a nation. Nations have borders which are universally understood, respected, and enforced. Nations have different forms of nationalism such as economic nationalism. Nations serve their national interests, they do not replace them with the interests of multinational corporations and cowardly pseudointellectual globalists.

[dennisw]

stinks

[DumpsterDiver]

Our Congress has sold us out to the globalists and they could care less what we think about it.

Do you think they are that devious, or are they stupid enough to just vote on things before they even read or understand them?

[Shermy]

since both parties should agree that it is extremely undesirable for the U.S. to expose itself to arbitrary rulings of this kind by unelected and unaccountable judges.

But do they?

[NRA2BFree]

"If Congress had known that there was anything like this in NAFTA," he said, "they would never have voted for it."

IF our traitorous, POS Congress critters ever READ pending Legislation BEFORE they approved it, they WOULD HAVE KNOWN! As long as we have imbeciles like them in office we are in grave danger. Get the rope!!

[ovrtaxt]

As long as we have imbeciles like them in office we are in grave danger.

I don't buy for a minute that they were uninformed about this. As thruthsayer20 stated, NAFTA was birthed during Reagan , nurtured during Bush1, and passed during Clinton. Mostly by Republicans, in fact.

By the time it got to vote, those creeps knew very well what NAFTA was. National sovereignty apparently meant nothing to them.

I doubt it would have passed had the internet been around.

[sarcasm]

And so another poisonous fruit of free trade ripens!

I'm sure that there are equally poisonous fruits in the FTAA. BTW, where are the "free traders" - searching for talking points?

[neutrino]

Good one!

Judicial Coup d'Etat

Post #26 is well worth reading!

[neutrino]

BTW, where are the "free traders" - searching for talking points?

They may have quite a long search - to support NAFTA tribunals is tantamount to confessing they truly and actually wish to subordinate the U.S. government to a foreign power. And that is true and actual treason.

[Iscool]

Actually, it was none other than Ronald Reagan who proposed and laid the groundwork for NAFTA.

I knew that but I was trying to be careful not to tread on Ronnie Reagan...