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

click here to read article


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

A room full of $2000.00 dollar suits does not grant one automatic free passes to do whatever they want.


81 posted on 08/07/2005 4:43:38 PM PDT by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

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.


82 posted on 08/07/2005 4:51:52 PM PDT by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

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


83 posted on 08/07/2005 4:58:57 PM PDT by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

"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?


84 posted on 08/07/2005 6:01:46 PM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

"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.


85 posted on 08/07/2005 6:04:01 PM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq

I guess the catch and release program isn't close enough to amnesty to suit you?


86 posted on 08/07/2005 6:05:15 PM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Nope, but it must be for you.


87 posted on 08/07/2005 6:08:07 PM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: antisocial
I guess the catch and release program isn't close enough to amnesty to suit you?

And what would you rather do with them? Keep them here? Put them in camps? Get Real. But since you are looking for a fight, I will not give you one.
88 posted on 08/07/2005 7:08:00 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (When Judge Roberts is confirmed, FR will be EXTREMELY funny that day...Get your PROZAC here!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: antisocial
I did refute the article. I pointed out that there is 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. The article I linked to gave numerous examples.

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.

89 posted on 08/07/2005 7:12:54 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: o_zarkman44

$2000.00 suits? I can't even get my tailor to look at them.


90 posted on 08/07/2005 10:07:20 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: antisocial
Riiiiight. Still looking for an example. Don't make me post a definition.
91 posted on 08/07/2005 10:09:40 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Check this thread out. Another one down the moonbat memory-hole.


92 posted on 08/08/2005 2:18:27 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

"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.


93 posted on 08/08/2005 5:33:39 PM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I guess there are disadvantages being a member of the big league yes?


94 posted on 08/08/2005 7:09:58 PM PDT by o_zarkman44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: antisocial
"So it is OK to impose the costs on the Taxpayer?"

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.

95 posted on 08/09/2005 5:05:54 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]


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