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.
A room full of $2000.00 dollar suits does not grant one automatic free passes to do whatever they want.
CAFTA also requires compliance with all WTO initiatives in order to participate. And compliance of WTO initiatives is a direct conflict with American Sovergnity under our charter and Constitution of the USA.
Carefully taylored press releases from parties complicit in drafting and initiative said CAFTA treaty cannot be considered law or have ultimate regulatory authority. Those press releases are intended for the consumption of a questioning public as to mislead, mistate, or omit certain segments of said treaty in order to promulgate the ratification.
As an unelected official, the US Trade Representitive is only doing the bidding of his employers by promoting their agenda. His words are not law.
You don't have to be a member of the gang to do their bidding. All they require is a herd of passive sheeple and a bucket full of free feed. Baaaaaa baaaaa
"If you are going to be carrying water for the democrats, you better be reading off the same page as Hillary."
Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn occasionally.
Can you refute the article or only cast aspersions?
"Surely you must have some examples of Bush not administering the immigration laws. "
How many businesses has the justice dept. filed on for hiring illegal aliens? compare that to prior years.
I guess the catch and release program isn't close enough to amnesty to suit you?
Nope, but it must be for you.
For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone, such as yourself, who calls himself a consrvative could support the massive amount of regulation that has been imposed on the country beginning with the New Deal.
It is choking the country.
$2000.00 suits? I can't even get my tailor to look at them.
Check this thread out. Another one down the moonbat memory-hole.
"nothing that prevents the govenment from imposing these reglatory takings as long as they are willing to pay for it rather than imposing the costs on business"
So it's ok to impose the costs on the taxpayer?
"For the life of me, I cannot understand how someone, such as yourself, who calls himself a consrvative could support the massive amount of regulation that has been imposed on the country beginning with the New Deal.
It is choking the country"
I support nothing from the new deal and very little that has happened since.
I believe it is unconstitutional for the congress to delegate treaty making to any other branch especially when
they don't maintain oversight.
I guess there are disadvantages being a member of the big league yes?
When the costs are imposed on business, the cost is passed onto the consumer. Since the consumer and the taxpayer are one and the same, the taxpayer/consumer pays for it either way. The only difference is that if the business pays for it, it is a hidden tax. Were govt to try to impose the costs onto the taxpayer directly, it would be very unpopular.
As for Congress delegating, you seem to be ignoring that Congress first must grant fast track authority and then has an up/down vote on approval. In addition, key members of Congress are informed of details during the process, Additionally, Public Citizen sued Bush and won in federal court which requires that the president provide a degree of transparency in his negotiations. These two things give Congress authority over negotiating process and terms of the agreement. Additionally, Congress can mitigate/financially offset terms of the agreement.
Once an agreement is reached, there is nothing to prevent one of the parties from withdrawing in the future.
Individual terms of the agreement can be modified. An example of this is when(2002) Mexico sought relief on leg quarter tariffs, US investors consented. Additionally, one of the parties can unilaterally modify the agreement. Although Mexico is entitled to tariffs on US corn until 2008, they are allowing in large amounts without applying the tariff.
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.