Trade tribunals must not trump state, local laws

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | August 23, 2005 | Liz Figueroa, Jesse Colorado Swanhuyser

[hedgetrimmer]

The next time you buy gasoline, look at the pump and you will likely see a warning about the fuel additive MTBE, which California has determined "presents a significant risk to the environment."

In 1994, MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) was identified as the source of a strange smell and taste in tap water by communities across California. Following a host of scientific studies, MTBE was found to be hazardous to both human and environmental health. So in 1999, after a rigorous multiyear public process, Gov. Gray Davis, with bipartisan support from the Legislature, acted to phase out the use of MTBE.

Up until that point, there was little to distinguish this policy-making process from any other. Three months later, however, the MTBE situation took a strange turn. Using an obscure rule in NAFTA's Chapter 11 (of no relation to U. S. bankruptcy law), a Vancouver-based company, Methanex Corp., challenged California's law. Methanex Corp., which produces a key ingredient of MTBE, sought $970 million, claiming that under NAFTA, our MTBE ban constituted a government seizure of the firm's property, its "expected future profits." If Methanex Corp. won, Californians would have had to either overturn a public- health law or come up with nearly $1 billion.

Earlier this month, a NAFTA tribunal in Washington, D.C., ruled against Methanex Corp., and California will not be forced to overturn the law or pay the firm nearly $1 billion. This is good news for those of us who think that governments should have the right to regulate without being required to pay off foreign investors.

But further investigation into the tribunal's 307-page decision shows that the threats posed to public laws and regulations by investment provisions of trade agreements remain.

[Yo-Yo]

Let us not forget that Kalifornia originally MANDATED the use of MTBE to reduce pollution.

[hedgetrimmer]

The ability of "free trade" tribunals to affect sovereign law is unconstitutional.

CAFTA Ping

[hedgetrimmer]

No, the EPA mandated it.

[hedgetrimmer]

The article discusses the constitutionality of an international tribunal in affecting sovereign law.

Let's keep the discussion on that topic.

[FBD]

bump^ and bookmark. thanks for the PING, HT.

Haven't seen your posts in awhile.

[hedgetrimmer]

You're welcome.

I've been taking a little R&R. Time to get back in the saddle.

[FBD]

The following was written by U.S. Representative C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho:

---

"CAFTA contains 1,000 pages of international law establishing property rights for foreign investors that may impose restrictions on U.S. land-use policy.

Chapter 10 of CAFTA outlines a system under which foreign investors operating in the United States are granted greater property rights than U.S. law provides for our own citizens!

That's not encouraging free trade. That's giving away our natural resources and our national sovereignty.

CAFTA would empower foreign investors to go to UN and World Bank tribunals to challenge state and federal policies here in the United States regarding property rights that violate their assumed "investor rights."

Those foreign investors then could demand compensation in the form of American taxpayer dollars for the losses caused by complying with the same domestic policies and regulations that apply to all U.S. citizens and businesses."

[Yo-Yo]

Fine, we'll keep on topic, but just to let you know, the California Air Resources Board mandated the use of oxygenated gasolines (RFGs) over a much broader area of California than the EPA mandated.

"The statewide use of 'oxygenated' gasoline, adopted today after a Sacramento public hearing, will begin in November 1992 and is expected to cut carbon monoxide emissions from tailpipes by 1,200 tons per day, or about 10 percent."

[Carry_Okie]

No, the EPA mandated it.

Not entirely correct. The EPA mandated the use of oxygenated gasoline in two air basins, Los Angeles and the Sacramento Valley. That formulation was an 8% MTBE mix. CARB mandated a 15% MTBE mix, statewide.

[patriot_wes]

"Trade tribunals must not trump state, local laws "

Ha! You just don't understand the NWO!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...Earlier this month, a NAFTA tribunal in Washington, D.C., ruled against Methanex Corp., and California will not be forced to overturn the law or pay the firm nearly $1 billion...

This time.

The very idea that a tribunal of unelected foreign beauracrats could force an American State to overturn a law is ludicrous.

Wait, it gets far worse with CAFTA and the North American Community.

[Carry_Okie]

To be clear about it: It is extremely unlikely that Congress has the lawful Constitutional authorization to delegate powers over State laws to a foriegn tribunal.

[hedgetrimmer]

So our participation in the WTO is unconstitutional.

[Carry_Okie]

So our participation in the WTO is unconstitutional.

IMO, yes.

[Iowa Granny]

thanks for the ping.

Glad to learn you didn't fall off the edge of the earth! ;>)

[A. Pole]

Three months later, however, the MTBE situation took a strange turn. Using an obscure rule in NAFTA's Chapter 11 (of no relation to U. S. bankruptcy law), a Vancouver-based company, Methanex Corp., challenged California's law. Methanex Corp., which produces a key ingredient of MTBE, sought $970 million, claiming that under NAFTA, our MTBE ban constituted a government seizure of the firm's property, its "expected future profits." If Methanex Corp. won, Californians would have had to either overturn a public- health law or come up with nearly $1 billion.

Free market / free trade deregulation bump!

[dixie sass]

Thanks for the ping.

[snowsislander]

From a bit more down in the article:

In this country, our elected officials have sworn an oath to serve the public interest and our courts have similar duties to uphold state and national constitutions. Our entire structure of representative government abides by the rules of careful checks and balances. NAFTA's trade tribunals are contrary to that system. With no public forum for oversight or accountability, three individuals decide the fate of a nation.

[hedgetrimmer]

Good points to remember.