Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Nafta Tribunals Stir U.S. Worries
The New York Times ^ | April 18, 2004 | ADAM LIPTAK

Posted on 04/17/2004 12:18:38 PM PDT by sarcasm

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

1 posted on 04/17/2004 12:18:40 PM PDT by sarcasm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neutrino
"It's basically been under the radar screen," Peter Spiro, a law professor at Hofstra University, said. "But it points to a fundamental reorientation of our constitutional system. You have an international tribunal essentially reviewing American court judgments."
2 posted on 04/17/2004 12:19:39 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

Maybe it's time for Congress to start paying attention to all those pesky details!

3 posted on 04/17/2004 12:23:35 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Thank you Comrade Clinton
4 posted on 04/17/2004 12:23:52 PM PDT by Charlespg (Civilization and freedom are only worthy of those who defend or support defending It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Gee, liberal judges cite foreign law for precedent and guidance to support enforcing their social ambitions by fiat, particularly the Mass. and calif. supreme courts, then act surprised when a foreign tribunal tries to trump them. As Bugs Bunny would say: "What maroons."
5 posted on 04/17/2004 12:23:54 PM PDT by JeeperFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
"It's basically been under the radar screen,"

That's because the anti-sovreignty globalists knew the public would react. They decided on a go-slow approach. Within 10 years or so the public will be conditioned not to question it.

6 posted on 04/17/2004 12:29:18 PM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DumpsterDiver
Maybe it's time for Congress to start paying attention to all those pesky details!

Having a Congressman actually reading the legislation he's voting on might be a start.

7 posted on 04/17/2004 12:33:38 PM PDT by sarcasm (Tancredo 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
For a number of years I've said NAFTA was a screwed up mistake just waiting to haunt our nation. In reaction some goon always drug their knuckles by to say...

"Oh NAFTA is just a free trade agreement and all you worry warts are simpletons."

Ahem.
8 posted on 04/17/2004 12:37:34 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Or so thought Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the Massachusetts court, until she learned of yet another layer of judicial review, by an international tribunal.

"I was at a dinner party," Chief Justice Marshall said in a recent telephone interview. "To say I was surprised to hear that a judgment of this court was being subjected to further review would be an understatement."

Judicial tyranny looks kinda different when the shoe's on the other foot, doesn't it, Margaret?

9 posted on 04/17/2004 12:39:19 PM PDT by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Bill and hillary clinton and their lawyers certainly knew what was in the bill.

The NAFTA bill was, along with the decision giving Most Favored Nation status to China, perhaps the most important piece of legislation to pass congress during clinton's 8 years in office. To say that congress didn't know what was in it is ludicrous. That's why congress has thousands of staffers eating out of the tax trough--to read things they don't have time to read themselves.

Kerry SAYS he favors an amendment to remove this provision. If so, then Bush should seize the opportunity to revise the treaty ASAP, 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.
10 posted on 04/17/2004 12:39:39 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
Having a Congressman actually reading the legislation he's voting on might be a start.

They have staffers (functional illiterates and/or agenda driven kooks) to do that for them. That frees up the Congressman to handle the really important things, like attending fundraisers.

11 posted on 04/17/2004 12:48:58 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
George Washington and our country's founding fathers were very explicit about why the U.S. should not get involved with other countries. This article is is one example of what could happen when we do.

I have seen first hand what foreign conglomerates do with American businesses once they buy them or become major shareholders in them. In most all cases, American companies either downsize, close, or move outside our borders in order to protect the interest of the shareholders. At one point or another, the courts are always involved. In fact, the courts and attorneys are the only winners in that they collect their fees regardless of whatever outcome. It is bad enough that this goes on in American businesses without foreign involvement.

However, those who broker global agreements without first thinking through the results of their actions almost always end up undermining our national sovereignty overall. The attorneys win. The taxpayer loses. NAFTA is but one example of this folly.

12 posted on 04/17/2004 12:57:34 PM PDT by tomball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
"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."

This statement is not true. During the NAFTA 1985 period I read more than ten times in the mass media about these tribunals that are superior to State and Federal courts in trade cases under NAFTA. Kerry is at best showing "selective amnesia."

Don't you people remember any of that stuff? It was being talked about all of the time.
13 posted on 04/17/2004 1:01:02 PM PDT by Iris7 (If "Iris7" upsets or intrigues you, see my Freeper home page for a nice explanatory essay.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
Thank you Comrade Clinton

This was a done deal by (read my lips) G. Bush Sr. in his last months of office...Clinton got it thru the Dem congress...It was a shoe-in for the Rep congress...

George Jr. expanded on this with the Singapore agreement and countless others...Let's not pick on Clinton...Focus on the one who is currently taking us to globalsim in a hand basket...

14 posted on 04/17/2004 1:02:43 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm; iamright; AM2000; Iscool; wku man; Lael; international american; No_Doll_i; techwench; ...
Thanks for the ping, Sarcasm!

My, my. Isn't this interesting? NAFTA has supplanted the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land - and, by extension, has subordinated our President, our Congress, and our Courts to an unelected international government.

And what of the WTO? Do their rules supersede US sovereignty as well? (Yes, they do!) Are we ready to let India, China, Ghana, and Zimbabwe rule us?

And so another poisonous fruit of free trade ripens!

Free traitors - truly, they are traitors - have placed themselves and their countrymen in chains so they could have cheap trinkets from China and India.

If you want on or off my offshoring ping list, please FReepmail me!

15 posted on 04/17/2004 3:27:06 PM PDT by neutrino (Oderint dum metuant: Let them hate us, so long as they fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Zeppo
That party she was at ~ was she "cruising"?
16 posted on 04/17/2004 3:29:27 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: sarcasm
This is the MAI or Multilateral Agreement on Investments. Which goes something like this:

If I'm doing business with you, and you pass a law that interferes with that business and I lose money, you have to pay me for my investment loss.

17 posted on 04/17/2004 3:48:51 PM PDT by navyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neutrino
NAFTA has supplanted the U.S. Constitution as the law of the land...

Let's not get too hysterical, shall we? These tribunals only apply to NAFTA trade cases, and congress can abrogate them at any time. For that matter, the courts could do the same, foreign policy or treaties notwithstanding.

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

18 posted on 04/17/2004 3:51:41 PM PDT by jimtorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
"This was a done deal by (read my lips) G. Bush Sr. in his last months of office...Clinton got it thru the Dem congress...It was a shoe-in for the Rep congress..."

Actually, it was none other than Ronald Reagan who proposed and laid the groundwork for NAFTA. The treaty was passed in Congress due to overwhelming Republican support. NAFTA was and is through and through a Republican project.

19 posted on 04/17/2004 4:01:05 PM PDT by Truthsayer20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jimtorr
Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall of the Massachusetts is from America
20 posted on 04/17/2004 4:05:36 PM PDT by RickGolden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-52 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson