Posted on 08/07/2005 6:58:15 AM PDT by antisocial
U.S. sovereignty slip-sliding away
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: August 6, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Henry Lamb
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
It began in 1994. All the attention was focused on the new WTO emerging from the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations. Little attention was paid to the Summit of the Americas meeting in Miami. The assembled ministers agreed to create a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and that it would be completed by January 2005, entering into force by December 2005.
For ten years, 34 governments have been conducting negotiating sessions throughout the Americas, fashioning a new trade agreement that will swallow up both NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and, quite literally, much of the U.S. Constitution.
The final draft agreement addresses every aspect of trade in the Western Hemisphere and requires that every dimension of the agreement be "WTO compliant." Chapter II contains two provisions that should disqualify the document immediately from any serious consideration by the U.S. Congress.
Article 4.2 contains this language:
4.2. The Parties shall ensure that their laws, regulations and administrative procedures are consistent with the obligations of this Agreement. The rights and obligations under this Agreement are the same for all the Parties, whether Federal or unitary States, including the different levels and branches of government. ... This language requires that existing laws – at every level of government – be conformed to the requirements of the agreement. It requires that all future laws conform as well. The effect of this agreement takes away law-making power from duly elected representatives of the people and gives it to unelected bureaucrats, most of whom represent foreign nations.
This language is consistent with the WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA, all of which were approved by Congress. Both NAFTA and the WTO have required revisions of dozens of domestic laws. CAFTA will do the same, and the FTAA will continue to take away laws that the peoples' representatives have enacted.
This process is transforming the meaning of national sovereignty. Article 3(g) stipulates that the agreement is governed by the principles of "sovereign equality." This is a term that arises from the 1995 publication of "Our Global Neighborhood," the report of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance. In Chapter II, under the heading Democracy and Legitimacy (page 66), a lengthy discussion proclaims that the concept of national sovereignty must be revised. Ideas are introduced such as:
"... countries are having to accept that in certain fields, sovereignty has to be executed collectively ..." (page 70) "... there is a need to weigh a state's right to autonomy against its people's right to security." (page 71)
"It is time to think about self-determination in the emerging context of a global neighborhood rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states." (page 337)
Thus, the concept of "sovereign equality" emerges to replace the concept of national sovereignty.
National sovereignty embraces the belief that every nation has equal sovereignty – independent and supreme authority over its territory. "Sovereign equality," on the other hand, is the belief that every nation has equal sovereign authority – under a common, or collective, supreme authority. The FTAA represents this supreme authority in the Western Hemisphere, in much the same way as the European Union seeks to become the supreme authority in Europe, both of which are subservient to the WTO, which functions within the United Nations' family of international organizations.
These two provisions alone should be enough to scrap this agreement. The negotiators have accepted this language, as has the administration. Congress is the only hope Americans have to reject this entangling agreement. Congressmen will not read this language, however. They will listen, instead, to the lobbyists, the arm-twisting messengers from the administration and editorials from the major media.
They will be told that the agreement is an expansion of free trade and that failure to approve the agreement will label the U.S. as isolationist, a rebel in the global neighborhood. These arguments have been successful with NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO. Ordinary people know better.
Ordinary people still have time to be heard on this agreement. Ordinary people elect these representatives, and politicians are dependent upon them for re-election. Ordinary people are the only power on earth greater than the power of the U.S. government. If ordinary people fail to defend their freedom, no one will defend it for them.
The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is an extraordinary erosion of freedom, for this nation and for every citizen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
"First, this applies to regulatory law only. One man's regulation is another man's regulatory taking.
Second, this does not prevent these various political sub-divisions from enacting these regulatory laws. It means that the govt cannot push the cost of conformance onto the back of business and industry.
This was crafted by Ronald Reagan and was probably the greatest thing he did."
Do you know what sustainable development is? Agenda 21?
Do you like the idea that unelected international bureaucrats make decisioms that our government cannot overrule?
So it seems
Name one.
"An oath is forever. There are more of us that believe that than there are of those who have taken the oath lightly."
I'm beginning to wonder, remember almost 50% of the voters voted for commie Kerry.
Go to the original article on worldnet daily and there are live links that explain everything alleged in the article.
The WTO is one.
Don't see any. I'm looking for an example of "unelected international bureaucrats mak[ing] decisions that our government cannot overrule." Just one. Open challenge to the forum.
Did I help elect the WTO and not realize it?
Please give me an example of the WTO "mak[ing] a decision that our government cannot overrule." Thanks in advance.
The final draft agreement addresses every aspect of trade in the Western Hemisphere and requires that every dimension of the agreement be "WTO compliant." Chapter II contains two provisions that should disqualify the document immediately from any serious consideration by the U.S. Congress.
Article 4.2 contains this language:
4.2. The Parties shall ensure that their laws, regulations and administrative procedures are consistent with the obligations of this Agreement. The rights and obligations under this Agreement are the same for all the Parties, whether Federal or unitary States, including the different levels and branches of government. ... This language requires that existing laws – at every level of government – be conformed to the requirements of the agreement. It requires that all future laws conform as well. The effect of this agreement takes away law-making power from duly elected representatives of the people and gives it to unelected bureaucrats, most of whom represent foreign nations.
I said "please."
Its a big, big conspiricy by the republicans, the VRWC, and the Federalist Society. Don't tell anyone but the bastards are trying to "Roll back the New Deal"
"Its a big, big conspiricy by the republicans, the VRWC, and the Federalist Society. Don't tell anyone but the bastards are trying to "Roll back the New Deal"
That would suit me fine, but I hate when they give international organizations veto power over our own lawmaking ability. Are you a real Texan, or a yankee import?
"I said "please."
Very polite of you :)
• Nothing in CAFTA prevents the United States or any state and local government from enacting, modifying, or fully enforcing domestic laws protecting consumers, health, safety, or the environment.CAFTA does not automatically preempt or invalidate laws in the United States.
• The agreement ensures that federal, state and local agencies continue to have an absolute right to set environmental, health, and safety standards at the levels they consider appropriate.
• The agreement simply provides that the legitimate standards that governments impose must be non-discriminatory and transparent, and not be used as disguised barriers to trade.
• CAFTA does not in any way preempt or invalidate federal, state, or local laws that may be inconsistent with the agreement. This is because, while the United States has committed itself to adhere to the rules set out in CAFTA, those rules do not automatically override any domestic laws.CAFTA dispute panels cannot overturn or change U.S federal, state or local laws.
• CAFTA dispute settlement panels have no authority to change U.S. law or to require the United States or any state or local government to change its laws or decisions.
• Only the federal or state governments can change a federal or state law.
• If, ultimately, the United States cannot reach an agreed settlement with the country that brings a dispute settlement claim under CAFTA, that country may withdraw trade benefits of equivalent effect. However, under trade agreement rules, the United States retains complete sovereignty in its decision of how to respond to any panel decision against it.
Source: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (.pdf)
Don't tell anyone but the bastards are trying to "Roll back the New Deal"
Must be a stealth roolback. I seem to recall GWB's Justice Department standing before the USSC recently making arguments based on Wickard v Filburn.
psst . . . John Bolton is a globalist . . . pass it on.
We can always overrule any decision but we would then be out of the trade group.
I agree that terminology needs to be rewritten to make it clear that national sovereignty is not compromised by the trade agreement.
I expect our public servants will clean up the language before any agreements are ratified.
"Source: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative"
Of course he would want everyone to think that, I believe he was appointed by Bush.
It is very important that we prevent GWB from succeeding in getting his federalist judges confirmed. Especially to the Supreme Court.
Let me explain.
If and when these investor protections get spread across the western hemisphere via NAFTA, CAFTA, and FTAA, we will be operating with two sets of laws. If we let Bush pick judges for SCOTUS, these judges could eventually rule that the New Deal is unconstitutional.
Tell me, what does it feel like to be sitting on the same side of the table with Ralph Nader, Earth Justice, and the AFL-CIO?
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.