[sarcasm]

"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."

[DumpsterDiver]

"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!

[Charlespg]

Thank you Comrade Clinton

[JeeperFreeper]

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."

[DoughtyOne]

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.

[Zeppo]

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?

[Cicero]

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.

[tomball]

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.

[Iris7]

"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.

[navyblue]

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.

[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?

[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

[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!!

[Happy2BMe]

NAFTA.

Can you believe there is a power of corruption even higher than our USSC?

"The availability of this additional layer of review, above even the United States Supreme Court, is a significant development, legal scholars said.

[William Terrell]

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

If that's true, then Congress has the duty, the will and the votes to repeal it. Therefore, it is not true; it's the same tactic as avoiding the bad smell from you own fart.

[A. Pole]

"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." The part of Nafta that created the tribunals, known as Chapter 11, received no consideration when it was passed in 1993.

"Free" trade bum!