Posted on 09/11/2007 5:09:04 PM PDT by ruination
It’s merely a law, not a treaty. The other countries may regard it as a treaty, but it is not one under our Constitution. It was never ratified as a treaty. We can withdraw whenever we wish. If Congress was serious about this, they’d do exactly that. This is a massive security liability both from a terrorism and crime perspective - not including all the Americans who will die on our highways. We - as a sovereign nation - don’t have to submit to that just because some arbitration panel ordered it - regardless of any agreements we signed in the past.
Forget “international law”. What does our Constitution say on the matter of treaties? That is the only law that matters.
“Our own courts have ruled against us.”
Not the first time that’s happened. In fact, it’s an issue of some novelty when our courts act within their legal powers and in the interest of the United States. Kind of like the rest of our government.
“As I said, this “ban” is so much paper and air”
No “tribunal” can force the Congress to fund something. To state otherwise would imply that an extra-national panel has been granted power to appropriate money from our public purse. The US Supreme Court can’t order that either. Not from a legal - as in the Constitution - standpoint.
The question is, are we a Constitutional Republic still or not?
>> No “tribunal” can force the Congress to fund something. To state otherwise would imply that an extra-national panel has been granted power to appropriate money from our public purse. The US Supreme Court can’t order that either. Not from a legal - as in the Constitution - standpoint.
The question is, are we a Constitutional Republic still or not?<<
Good post, Infidel.
From Article 9 of the Constitution:
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;
Congress has explicit and sole power to spend, or not spend, money. Idiot judges do not, if the Constitution is still the law.
>>Every driver entering this country under the program will have to verify compliance with safety requirements, and they would have to do so every time they entered the United States.<<
BS. Mexico has no real driver records. If they create a database or driver records, it will be a work of fiction. Ask any Mexican what happens when the police stop them for a traffic violation. They pay a bribe. The police have no desire to report any traffic violation.
The arbitration panel has jurisdiction. And they have already found the the US to be in violation.
So, the only issue is how Mexico will be compensated?
Of course you realize that it not the Teamsters that will have to pay. It is you, the taxpayer, that will pay.
And it is not just Mexico that will have to be compensated. The private investors have a slam dunk case also, so you can compensate them too.
So this “arbitration panel” has greater power than congress or the Constitution?
Screw them and the burro they rode in on.
>>The private investors have a slam dunk case also, so you can compensate them too.<<
If “private investors” matter more than public safety and the Constitution, we no longer have a legitimate government.
I have never hear of this "constitutional right to cheat people out of their money"
>>Congress authorized the dispute resolution method.<<
And they authorized a border fence but it’s not getting done. Congress can refuse to fund this preposterous plan to import unsafe drivers. And if some arbitration board fines the US government, they can damn well refuse to fund that too.
>>I have never hear of this “constitutional right to cheat people out of their money”<<
Who is cheating whom?
Money trumps everything, including sovereignty and safety. If companies can make a buck, who cares about driver safety or unsafe imports from China?
Our government’s #1 job should be to keep us safe, but Bush has really not shown much interest in doing so.
No, the document/agreement prevails.
If I broke a contract with you, would you want your money back?
Its simple. The US just needs to say that they have changed their mind, compensate those that lost money, and move on.
I believe the Administration’s position is as the Senator set out. If we are a nation of laws then abide or change them. If it is bad law, then get the ball moving for change.
>>The US just needs to say that they have changed their mind, compensate those that lost money, and move on.<<
OK, but the settlement can’t be an unrealistic figure. And then our dear government should also compensate every US citizen that has been harmed by its refusal to enforce immigration laws. Yes, that is taxpayer money. It should bring awareness of what a miserable job this administration, congress (most of the time), and the courts are doing. Our government is cheating us and I would hope that would bring some of these issues into prominence in 2008 primaries and general elections.
“Congress has explicit and sole power to spend, or not spend, money. Idiot judges do not, if the Constitution is still the law.”
I guess we’ll see if that’s still true.... Here’s hoping that at least some of it is still followed.
“I believe the Administration’s position is as the Senator set out. If we are a nation of laws then abide or change them. If it is bad law, then get the ball moving for change.”
That’s pretty laughable coming from this Administration - and its views on “law enforcement” - if true.
It’s not a treaty, and has no legal teeth whatsoever. You’re bloviating.
We need to keep those trucks out, period.
As Ficklin points out, there is a NAFTA “arbitration panel” whose power was authorized by congress. Now that panel seems to want to override congress. Seems to me that NAFTA provision could face a constitutional challenge, although I don’t know much of the history of NAFTA court cases. In one of them, a US company was awarded 15 million because the Mexican municipality of would not allow a hazardous waste dump.
Now why can’t Mexican companies return the favor? I wonder if NAFTA could be used to force US cities to let Mexican companies build waste dumps. (Looks like some US cities are already becoming waste dumps with the help of illegals.)
I would not be surprised if the same lawyers who were involved in writing NAFTA are now eager to profit from it by suing the US government.
Come on, ambulance chasers! Get into international law so you can get rich attacking countries’ sovereignty! Especially the USA, where the real money is — at least until it is destroyed by greedy businesses, with help from “our” government.
What does the Administration have to do with local enforcement? What do you call the willful blindness concerning the 20+ million illegal aliens committing all sorts of federal crimes like tax fraud and identity theft?
Why does this Administration ignore the obvious criminality of the Clinton Administration - like Sandy Berger? Do you have ANY IDEA what they would have done (and rightly so) to a regular person caught doing what Sandy did? Why the kid gloves?
Well, George HW does refer to Clinton as his “other son” from time to time....
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.