Pure nonsense. Treaties have been entered into throughout history, and only very recently have treaties involved of any kind of independent body to oversee disputes. That's just an embryonic government, plain and simple.
Using your logic, the US should never have joined NATO or have treaties with anyone.
Treaties I already dealt with. As for NATO, does it involve a separate body for "resolving disputes"? If it does, then it probably would have been better not to join up and set that precedent. What exactly did it enable us to do that we wouldn't have been able to do otherwise? Would the nations of Western Europe have not allowed us to station troops there without us all being in some kind of formal alliance? Would they have preferred instead to let themselves be exposed to Soviet attack?
In the years that we have had free trade with Jordan - while US relations have improved with Jordan - do you think there has been any political consilidation whatsoever?
Was the FTA with Jordan attempted to be justified on the grounds of national security the way you're trying to justify CAFTA? And in either event, CAFTA goes further, according to the USTR's own website.
Tarrifs are taxes - as Rs we should oppose them here and abroad - and this treaty does both.
The taxes you refer to are minuscule compared to the overall tax burden. Sure it would be nice to get rid of them, but it's not such an emergency that we need to compromise our sovereignty in any way whatsoever in order to do it. If it really is "taxes" that you're concerned about, we can more than make up for both our own tariffs and theirs by cutting the income tax back down to civilized levels.
Treaties always have mechanisms for enforcement - be it a third party or the ability to simply leave. As CAFTA is not going to be approved as a treaty, it has even less potentcy. This is a no-brainer - the agreement opens up foreign markets to our exporters.
If you really disagree with the creatoin of NATO there really is no point in continuing this discussion. This is merely about an agreement to open foreign markets in the face of an agressive enemy who would rather they stay shut to us.
The Jordan agreement has many justifications - all equal - and involving both SECURITY and ECONOMICS.
And this conversation will not continue unless you give me one example of our soveriengnty being lost to Canada or Mexico due to NAFTA. You guys made the SAME ARGUMENTS back then about a North American superstate. I don't see it.