Posted on 08/07/2005 6:58:15 AM PDT by antisocial
"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.