U.S. LUMBER INDUSTRY CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NAFTA DISPUTE SETTLEMENT SYSTEM

COALITION FOR FAIR LUMBER IMPORTS ^ | September 13, 2005 | COALITION FOR FAIR LUMBER IMPORTS

[Iscool]

The U.S. industry vigorously supports the U.S. government’s pursuit of free trade principles and a negotiated settlement based on reasonable Canadian commitments to timber policy reform.

These saps wanted it, now they got it...

[Iscool]

If Japan wanted to give every American a car for free, our government should have no capacity to stop it to protect union (or other) jobs.

Hey, I'm with you...I think we Americans should all ban together and refuse to buy anything made in America...American goods are far too expensive...

[Paul Ross]

Bump.

Now we will see whether there is any Constitutional honesty left in the Courts...

[hedgetrimmer]

Now we will see whether there is any Constitutional honesty left in the Courts...

I want to believe there is.

[raybbr]

But aren't home-buyers American? And aren't there more American home-buyers than Americans in the lumber industry? How does keeping out low-cost lumber constitute looking out for Americans first?

Apparently you missed the point. Lumber is such a small fraction of the cost of building a home that it is almost negligible.

[hedgetrimmer]

How does keeping out low-cost lumber constitute looking out for Americans first?

Looking out for Americans first, means first defending the Constitution. Letting in so-called low cost lumber while undermining Constitutional rights does no American citizen a favor. It is our duty as citizens to protect the rights of all citizens, and this is done by adhering to our Constitution, which protects our right to a representative government.

[antisocial]

Thanks for the ping. I was wondering how long this would take, seems we may find out how many Surpreme Court members
are CFR goons.

[Havoc]

Dumping is one thing when it is the price of the good that is dumped. What about when it's the wage... nobody wants to talk about that forthrightly.

[1rudeboy]

Lumber is such a small fraction of the cost of building a home that it is almost negligible.

OMG LOL. You actually believe that? If I build a house, will you donate the lumber?

[1rudeboy]

We have a Constitutional right to expensive lumber! To the barricades!

[1rudeboy]

Nice to see you've re-discovered the folks at Public Citizen.

[Toddsterpatriot]

NAFTA panels make binding decisions about application of domestic U.S. law. Again, their opinions have the force of U.S. law, like a court order.

And yet the U.S. has ignored these binding decisions. I guess they don't have the force of U.S. law, do they?

[Toddsterpatriot]

and this is done by adhering to our Constitution, which protects our right to a representative government.

Our representative government is protecting you from low cost Canadian lumber. You read about the tariffs, didn't you?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Dumping is one thing when it is the price of the good that is dumped.

I just hope the U.N. doesn't tell us to drop these lumber tariffs.

[1rudeboy]

Check what I've found:

The current softwood lumber dispute (Lumber IV) commenced in April of 2001. From May 22, 2002 to Dec 20, 2004 most Canadian softwood lumber exported to the US was subject to a combined countervailing and anti-dumping duty of 27%, collected by US Customs. From December 20, 2004 to December 12, 2005 the duties collected were 20%. On December 12, 2005, the duties collected at the border were reduced to 10.81%.
Government of British Columbia

Something smells unconstitutional. Not.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reduce those tariffs you silly hosers.

[Havoc]

Why, you afraid they might have authority that your representatives gave them? lol.

[MarkL]

Isn't NAFTA an "agreement," rather than a treaty, which would have had to be ratified by the senate? I was under the impression that was the case.

If that is the case, then such an "agreement" isn't valid under the Constitution anyway, since there's no such thing mentioned in the Constitution. And it certainly can't superceed any US laws.

Mark

[Toddsterpatriot]

Unlike you, I understand that the UN has no authority over the United States.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't NAFTA an "agreement," rather than a treaty, which would have had to be ratified by the senate? I was under the impression that was the case.

NAFTA was passed by a majority in the House and Senate.

And it certainly can't superceed any US laws.

You are correct, NAFTA does not have greater authority than the US Constitution. Neither does any treaty.