[hedgetrimmer]

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. The panels are accountable to no one within the U.S. constitutional system of government. This is unprecedented and unconstitutional.

[EagleUSA]

We knew what "free trade" agreements like NAFTA/CAFTA would do to our soverignty --- here is just the beginning of what it is doing to it exactly....

[EagleUSA]

...And you can thank El Jefe President Jorge for pushing hard for soveringty-busting "agreements" like this. Un-freakin' believable. Foreign governments controlling U.S. law...

[Always Right]

The World Trade Organization has approved these findings, and countervailing (anti-subsidy) and antidumping duties have been imposed on Canadian lumber imports since 2002. But a NAFTA dispute panel has exceeded its authority by directing the U.S. International Trade Commission to reverse a finding that unfair imports threaten the U.S. lumber industry.

What a tangled web multiple international trade treaties pose. In order to impose duties it must pass the muster of both WTO and NAFTA courts.

[raybbr]

Duties to offset unfair Canadian lumber practices do not cause housing price increases

• While the national average new single-family house price rose by roughly 40 percent between the first quarter of 2000 and the second quarter of 2005,1 lumber prices during the second quarter of 2005 were only about 1.6 percent higher than they had been during the first quarter of 2000.2

• Lumber costs account for roughly 2.5% of average house prices, a figure that has been falling in recent decades. In 1993, lumber costs accounted for approximately 4.25% of house prices.

Isn't this contrary to what free-traders tell us? Any time we get dumped on it's okay but heaven forbid we should look out for America and Americans first.

[DoughtyOne]

NAFTA, CAFTA-DR...

Such a deal! A deal we should take a pass on.

[Ben Ficklin]

Ah yes, the infamous Dirty Byrd Amendment

[ConservativeMind]

If it is true that this circumvents our legal system, then I have no problems with it being declared unconstitutional.

However, if another country wants to give us tons of money under any guise and without obligation for our own use, I have no problems with it.

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.

[cope85]

nafta http://www.amerikanexpose.com/othlinks.html#NAF

[swampfox98]

America is no longer a soverign nation, thanks to George Bush. His policy of open borders, bring millions of Mexicans in this country for us to take care of plus these horrible treaties he and Bill Clinton and Rush Limbaugh supported are going to be the death of this country. But that is the way they want it. The death of the middle class and the birth of a slave nation for the Republicans.

[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...

[Paul Ross]

Bump.

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

[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.

[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

[kanawa]

Ping