Posted on 09/05/2004 5:52:32 PM PDT by backtothestreets
Well, of course, it was only mentioned in passing, as a response to CJ Burger's concurrence in Bowers which argued that the sodomy laws possessed "ancient roots" in Western civilization. Burger stated: “Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization." So is it inappropriate for Burger to make such claims about foreign cultures? Indeed, is it inappropriate for Justices such as Scalia to cite Blackstone or pre-revolution common law of England?
Regardless, Kennedy's reference to European law was only to refute CJ Burger's statement about the history of Western Civilization. If Kennedy was wrong to mention European authorities, then Burger was surely wrong to rely on foreign authority to condemn sodomy in the first place. You can't have it both ways. In the end, of course, it had absolutely nothing to do with the decision other than to cast doubt on a premise that was initially proposed by one of the more conservative members of the court a couple of decades earlier.
Anyway, I don't accept your premise that the FTAA trumps US sovereignty. Sorry. There's just no evidence of it.
If it doesn't follow the rulues, the US has the power to block importation. Next objection?
Now are you making an argument against Fast Track authority?
I certainly agree that there ought to be a rational, informed debate over trade agreements. I frankly don't see how an objective person, after such a debate, could conclude that trade agreements are bad things. After all, what have been the objections on here? Objections over things that are clearly addressed in the document! Someone actually said that Mexico could legally import contaminated food under the NAFTA. Are you kidding? A rational, informed debate would disspell untruths such as this.
Remember, the NAFTA, as with any other trade agreement, is the product of a negotiation. Each country agrees to do (or not to do) certain things. Everything in the NAFTA was a production of an agreement between the US, Mexico, and Canada. That's all it is. An agreement not to do things. An agreement to follow certain enforcement measures. An agreement to certain penalities. Assuming, arguendo, that the NAFTA requires the US to give up its sovereignty, are you arguing that a government has no power to do so? After all, in some respects, any treaty is an aborgation of sovereignty.
Interesting. 1 - "When completed, the FTAA will be the largest free trade area in the world, with a combined GDP of more that $10 trillion and 800 million people. "
From CIA Fact Book - US Population 293 million, GDP $10.98 trillion .
So, we add 500 million people, and subtract 1 Trillion $ in GDP, and we get FTAA.
I'm glad you want to press this point. It's an area I have had much personal experience with. I worked in the institutional food distribution industry for about 15 years, serving both wholesale and retail establishments.
Every winter we rely heavily on imported fresh produce from Mexico. Every winter our warehouse staffs developed respiratory illnesses that persisted and lingered until crops in the US could be harvested. The problem is known, as is the cause. Mexico does not have the stringent bans on pesticides, fungicides, and other chemicals the US has. While debates have flourished over the effects of minimal exposure to these agents, there is no debate exposure in concentrated amounts is harmful.
The only debate left to be tackled is in what amounts do minimal exposures become harmful if the body cannot properly dispose of these agents over time? All the health data in our country points to steady increases of respiratory illnesses throughout our nation. While proponents of air control regulations have been pointing to automobiles and factory discharges as the primary culprit, the occasional exposure to harmful agents, such as those used on fresh produce imported from Mexico, has not been addressed. They should be. If for no other reason but to know with certainty, it should be addressed.
Once again, the FTAA should be discussed openly by those duly elected, and seeking elective office.
"Now are you making an argument against Fast Track authority?"
Yeah, I'm against that too. While some may argue this would be a good tool in the hands of President Bush, reality says GW will not be president forever. This same tool in the hands of another president could wreck havoc. Leave the Senate to do their job as outlined in the constitution.
And once again, the FTAA should be discussed openly by those duly elected, and those seeking elective office. An open discussion cannot harm the public. I agree with you the debates should be rational and informed.
bump for later study placemarker
Good grief. Your staff comes down with the flu and you blame NAFTA?
"As this special issue of TNA shows, the so-called free trade agreements — the European Union, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas — have nothing to do with genuine free trade. They have everything to do with creating regional governing bodies on the road to world government."
Excerpt from The New American: http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2004/09-06-2004/editor.htm
For the sake of debate on free trade issues I'd like to pose a question. All the nations involved in the FTAA can petition their citizens to join the United States of America. Our Constitution stays intact, trade barriers would be removed, and the sovereignty of our nation cannot be questioned. Is this not an option to free trade?
You still can't add.
If the GDP of the US is 11 Trillion, and the GDP of the FTAA is 10 Trillion, That means that the GDP of all the other nations of FTAA outside the US have a NEGATIVE GDP, WHICH DRAWS DOWN the total GDP. So, basically, we in the US, would be subsidizing those extra 500 million people from our GDP.
The zero-sum game. The last refuge of a protectionist.
Presumably, this has to pass Congress. If so, it has to be stopped the minute it arrives on Capitol Hill. Does anyone remember the effect of the phone/e-mail campaign for disclouse of the check-bouncers in 1992 had? It can be done if patriots organize against the free traitors.
Yea. Another ruse to somehow equate "free trade" with "freedom". And as we now know, FTAA is another twist in the vice put upon the American People by the Nephilim who hold the reins of government. As it is not too difficult to name names, I'll leave that part out for now.
Someone I work with asked me about this last week. I think he wears tinfoil sometimes.
I need some help from you guys. I want to get Savage or someone like him to talk about the FTAA on the radio. Will you guys help me in e-mailing Savage and any other talk radio host you can think of? I doubt Hannity would care and probably the same with Ann Coulter, I love her but she never talks about immigration. We REALLY need to get the word out fast or this will pass under our nose!! I have tried e-mailing Savage but who knows if he even reads them. If someone could call his show or e-mail him maybe one of us can get through.
ping
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.