Posted on 04/05/2005 8:04:50 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Is the world indeed moving toward a "new world order," a "one world government"? You may not like to think so, but it's difficult not to give this serious consideration.
For those of you old enough, you may recall an ad campaign back in the 1950s and '60s that wanted to "Get the U.S. out of the UN," partly because there was concern that U.S. sovereignty might be compromised by decisions made by the United Nations. The ad campaign sponsors wanted to make sure that no world government would be making decisions on behalf of the U.S., or imposing its will on U.S. citizens.
Well, guess what? It's happening - not through the U.N., but rather through trade agreements.
It's ironic, isn't it? Those early fears concerning the UN and the loss of sovereignty have practically vanished despite the creation of the World Trade Organization and regional trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the yet-to-be adopted Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), not to mention the broad powers given to the WTO and the trade agreements.
While the UN is largely considered a toothless tiger that has little power to enforce the resolutions it passes, the trade agreements have a full set of sharp teeth in the form of stiff enforcement powers which are being used to chew on the sovereign rules of individual governments.
Consider the Chapter 11 provision in NAFTA, wherein a country's government can be sued by an investor or group of investors in another country if it believes that an action by that government infringes on the investors' rights granted under NAFTA.
Hard to believe? Believe it. Methanex, a Canadian corporation, is suing the U.S. government for $970 million because California placed a ban on the gasoline additive MTBE. California placed the ban when it found MTBE - ruled as a potential carcinogen - in the state's groundwater. Methanex claims the California ban harmed them because it substantially reduced the demand for methanol - their sole product. If Methanex gets a favorable ruling, California could be forced to rescind a decision that was made to protect the health of its residents.
Sound out of whack? Well, consider also that in the U.S., the courts have consistently ruled against U.S. corporations who have tried to make similar arguments against various regulations. But, because Methanex is a Canadian company, it has more rights under an international tribunal than a U.S. company would have under U.S. courts.
Then there's the WTO case filed against the state of Utah by the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbados because Utah doesn't allow gambling. (In fact, gambling has been illegal throughout Utah's 110 year history.) Despite that, the WTO panel agreed with Antigua and Barbados that "gambling regulations in Utah and most other states conflict with America's obligation not to discriminate against foreigners providing 'recreational services'." As a result, Utah lost a bit of its sovereignty and individual states' powers are being preempted by various trade dispute panels.
The impact of the power given these trade panels extends beyond individual states. Consider that the recent trade ruling in the Brazil-U.S. cotton case has the potential to force a significant revision of the U.S. farm program. If the U.S. doesn't comply with the ruling, it could be subject to significant trade sanctions.
These days it appears international trade dispute panels have all the power and control. Through them a government, a group of producers, a group of investors or a corporation, can override the sovereign decisions of a country, forcing the country, or state, to rescind a duly passed law or regulation it believes is in the best interests of its citizens. Either that or pay a substantial penalty.
When did the U.S. give up its sovereign right to make decisions in the interests of its citizenry? Perhaps the better question is - why?
Any treaty supercedes law, so beware! We can lose our law
quicker than most believe.
We're doomed!!!
The US is a Mexican colony.
FYI
Well at least we got cheap products from China to make up for our loss of sovereignty! Three cheers for Free Trade!!1
In the end, the UN will rule. The end justifies the means to these people.
What I find odd is that the WTO is attacking our most liberal states or the states who have Rockefellow Republicans such as Orin Hatch of Utah. Maybe "odd" is the wrong word.
Try this idea on for thought. Maybe we need to get some foreign group to sue the state of Alabama for the same reason they are suing the state of Utah. Alabama has already said no to gambling many times. My thoughts on this are that the people of Alabama would tell the WTO exactly where to go.
Bump!
save
FYI
That's what the one-worlders would like us to believe, but it is just not so. All laws are passed by congress, treaty laws included - - - but only with the PROVISO that all laws passed remain in pursuance to the Bill of Rights/U.S. Constitution. (Article VI, para 2.)
All laws must pass the litmus test of the 'pursuance' clause.
Thanks for clarifying. A lot of people think that treaties can supercede our Constitution, and therefore are passive to them if they are ratified.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;"
Thanks for clarifying. A lot of people think that treaties can supercede our Constitution, and therefore are passive to them if they are ratified.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;"
A'hem...Just a practical observation. Has the Court ever struck down a treaty as not being in pursuance....?
As a practical matter? Uhh....(reaching for rose-colored glasses)...lemmee get back with you. ;>
Exactly right, hedgetrimmer. Problem is, many lawmakers conveniently forget that the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. Especially amendments 2, 9 and 10. Treaties have been used to manipulate the constitution and seize municipal powers for many decades.
Here's one of my favorite links which shows how they do it. A long read, but worth the time:
Thanks for the ping. I'd hate to see the supremecy of the constitution over treaty law challenged with the bunch on the bench at this point.
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.