Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Sovereignty; Slip-Sliding Away
WorldNetDaily ^ | August 6, 2005 | Henry Lamb

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: adiosmiddleclass; aycarumba; bilderbergers; bushisatraitor; cafta; cfr; civilwar2; committeeof300; conform; endofusa; eyeinthepyramid; ftaa; hablasespanol; hangemhigh; hangthebastards; henrylamb; icc; illuminati; internationalrulers; moonbats; morons; nafta; nomoreborders; noonecares; nwo; oneworldgovernment; owo; picturespam; resistanceisfutile; sellingusout; sovereignty; submitorperish; traitors; weeklyworldnews; worldnutdaily; yo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: Ben Ficklin
And you "free traders" are carrying the water for the leftists that run the WTO:

From the former Director General Mike Moore of the WTO:

Malmo, July 26th 2000
In Praise of the Future
International Union of Socialist Youth Festival


We on the Left have a lot to be proud of. We built the Welfare State that looks after people when they are sick, poor, or old. We fought for the equality of women and of minorities. We argued passionately for internationalism, for solidarity between workers in Sweden and those in Africa.

I see no contradiction between being on the Left and supporting free trade and the WTO. I am, and always will be, a Labour man. But how does making food and clothing from abroad more expensive help working people? How does raising the price of cars so that only the rich can afford them help working people? And how does protecting the jobs of yesterday at the expense of the jobs of tomorrow help working people? It doesn't. It doesn't. It doesn't.
61 posted on 08/07/2005 11:49:50 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
I don't seem to recall Bush granting amnesty. That has always been and will always be Congress' job.

Obviously there is not adequate money to prosecute every case. Whichever case gets prosecuted with whatever funds that are available, I'm sure you will find fault with it.

62 posted on 08/07/2005 11:51:21 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

I thought we were talking about bi-laterals/regionals? Are you trying to change the subject?


63 posted on 08/07/2005 11:55:31 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Whichever case gets prosecuted with whatever funds that are available, I'm sure you will find fault with it.

I'm equally certain that whatever legitimate criticism he's got coming for claiming to want a "strict construtionst" view of the Constitution while his Justice Department argues for the New Deal is strictly the work of chronic malcontents.

64 posted on 08/07/2005 11:59:54 AM PDT by tacticalogic (Say goodnight, Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Once again I will remind you, the executive branch administers the law.


65 posted on 08/07/2005 12:03:24 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Once again I will remind you, the executive branch administers the law.

Why? Do you think repeating that little truism answers the obvious questions raised by the contradictions between what's being said and what's being done?

66 posted on 08/07/2005 12:07:41 PM PDT by tacticalogic (Say goodnight, Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

"little truism"?


67 posted on 08/07/2005 12:09:36 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

They administer the law. But they do it according to priorities set by and under direction of the Executive. The AG is a political appointee. They can pick and choose which cases they will pursue, or not.


68 posted on 08/07/2005 12:12:48 PM PDT by tacticalogic (Say goodnight, Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

And who provides the money and oversight?


69 posted on 08/07/2005 12:15:06 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

And who revues?


70 posted on 08/07/2005 12:16:50 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

And how did Bush get into office?


71 posted on 08/07/2005 12:18:55 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
And who provides the money and oversight?

Why is that relevant? Do you think GW is afraid Congress will de-fund the Justice Department if he doesn't do what they want?

72 posted on 08/07/2005 12:23:58 PM PDT by tacticalogic (Say goodnight, Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
And how did Bush get into office?

He was elected by the States.

73 posted on 08/07/2005 12:26:28 PM PDT by tacticalogic (Say goodnight, Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Of course Congress will not defund the Justice Dept, but they are highly skilled at managing the President's employees.

In fact, I would say that Congress has been kicking Bush's butt around Washington for 5 years.

74 posted on 08/07/2005 12:31:13 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Of course Congress will not defund the Justice Dept, but they are highly skilled at managing the President's employees.

In fact, I would say that Congress has been kicking Bush's butt around Washington for 5 years.

Putting a new spit shine on those New Deal brogans they're wearing isn't helping that situation one bit.

75 posted on 08/07/2005 12:37:58 PM PDT by tacticalogic (Say goodnight, Grace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser
"I expect our public servants will clean up the language before any agreements are ratified."

Sure they will...

76 posted on 08/07/2005 12:41:38 PM PDT by Czar (StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: antisocial
Post#30 gave the specific example did you read it?

Is English your second language?

77 posted on 08/07/2005 2:37:54 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
And you "free traders" are carrying the water for the leftists that run the WTO.

Funny that. Yet still no acknowledgement that you are "carrying water" for Nader, Kucinich, Gephardt, Chavez, Castro, the AFL-CIO, and even the Screen Actors' Guild. Why the double standard?

78 posted on 08/07/2005 2:41:52 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Nader, Kucinich, Gephardt, Chavez, Castro, the AFL-CIO, and even the Screen Actors' Guild

None of these people talk about preseving individual liberty, individual rights and the sovereign nation our founders gave us, that's why I am not "carrying water" for them. If its too fine a point for you to understand, let me know and I'll try explain.
79 posted on 08/07/2005 2:46:56 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

World Heritage Area Designations.

Spineless politicians would never back down and withdraw from participation in order to save face.


80 posted on 08/07/2005 4:41:10 PM PDT by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson