Guatemala Welcomes CAFTA Treaty

Voice of America ^ | 29 July 2005 | Jill Replogle

[IronChefSakai]

Quoting:

"He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided TWO-THIRDS of the Senators present concur;..."

What exactly is the difference between a "Trade Agreement" and a "Treaty"?

Webster's Dictionary defines Treaty as "a written agreement between nations"; while Agreement is defined as "1. concord; harmony, 2. contract; bargain."

If a "Treaty" is then and "Agreement" and CAFTA is an "Agreement", then the Senate by law should be required to have 2/3 of the senators present in order to pass CAFTA. This is the most blatant abuse of power by trying to theoretically skirt the intentional meaning of the constitution vis a vis changing a few words to push their agenda through. Strictly looking at the manner in which the "Trade Agreement" was passed, it is unconstitutional.

A BARGAIN is pretty much what corporate america got.

Anyone else agree/disagree?

[Nowhere Man]

We've got enough on our plate already, and we're getting acid reflex from trying to digest what we've already got.

Best analogy I have seen so far.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Guatemala is happy because we are all going to be at their level soon.

[mmercier]

It will be interesting to see a country the size of Guatemala, with a corrupt government and a retarded economy decimate the largest most dynamic economy in the history of the world.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

We can only do that to ourselves.

[mmercier]

>> We can only do that to ourselves.

There are about 20 old communists in high office that are dying off, we have tolerated these people in the past and we can tolerate them in the future.

As they die off they are replaced by less pure radicals, they are diminishing in their power and scope with every election cycle.

Most of the newer Communists are easily identified as nitwits by the electorate. That does not mean they are going anywhere soon, but the damage they do is increasingly subject to public scrutiny.

This has nothing to do with free trade, as the communists here were mostly opposed to CAFTA to begin with. If the CAFTA deal was truly bad for the republic, they would have been the first to sign on; their opposition speaks louder than anything else IMO.

Free trade is always good. Always.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

CAFTA is unConstitutional and far more than about free trade.

It's managed trade, and not free market. I consider it betrayal and will have nothing to do with those who have put it forward.

I don't see myself voting republican again, at least not for anyone connected to this administration in any way.

Of course I'd never vote democrat, so I'll just be staying home.

But that means no more contributions, no more volunteering and no encouragement to others to vote for the pubs.

When you add in the North American Community crap, they all appear to be traitors, not just idiots.

[mmercier]

All trade must be managed by statutory mechanism. They are not going to come take us away because CAFTA passed...

Stay home, it is just another vote for the beast in 08'.
Voting matters little to me (I live in the Masshole) but I do it out of unrequited faith.