Treaty agteements supercede Federal law, always have.
What treaty?
Note that the House vote was 234-200 and the Senate vote was 61-38.
A treaty requires no House concurrence but does require the concurrence of 2/3s of the Senators "present." [U. S. Constitution - Article II; Section 2].
Two-thirds of the Senate present for the NAFTA vote did not concur. The Bill was passed but no treaty was authorized.
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary
| Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R.3450 ) | |||
| Vote Number: | 395 | Vote Date: | November 20, 1993, 07:28 PM |
| Required For Majority: | 1/2 | Vote Result: | Bill Passed |
| Measure Number: | H.R. 3450 | ||
| Measure Title: | A bill to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement. | ||
| Vote Counts: | YEAs | 61 |
|
|
NAYs | 38 |
|
|
Not Voting | 1 |
|
|
Ayes | Noes | PRES | NV |
| Democratic | 102 | 156 | ||
| Republican | 132 | 43 | ||
| Independent | 1 | |||
| TOTALS | 234 | 200 |
Correct...
NAFTA is not a treaty. It was never submitted to the Senate as a treaty and did not receive the two-thirds majority vote that treaty ratification requires, but instead was enacted in 1993 by a congressional-executive agreement.
You can pretend that the United States did not give up soveignty here. You can even use the phony language the U.S. government used to get around the Senate confirmation.
BUT I AM NOT GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO PRETEND THAT THIS IS NOT AN INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED TREATY AGREEMENT THAT DOESN'T FORCE THE UNITED STATES TO ACCEPT THE TRIBUNALS RULINGS.
NAFTA has the force of law. As with any law, it can be changed or abolished with the passage of another law
This isn't true with NAFTA in the context that we cannot escape any actions currently in play. Nor could we escape any judgement in which the loss to the Canadian or Mexican citizen is to have occurred before we opted out.
As to the notion that congress/president has the power to pass laws which alter NAFTA. Those changes are completely irrelavent and meaningless UNLESS Canada and Mexico agree to them also. Should I slow down here so you can gasp our loss of soveriegnty. For you see, via NAFTA we've agreed to be HELD TO THE RULE OF THE NAFTA TRIBUNALS. Do you for one second believe that an international tribunal will believe that NAFTA allows the U.S. to change clauses therein without the consent of the other NAFTA memebers, but Canada and Mexico does not have that power?
It really doesn't matter what the heck you of the U.S. Congress calls NAFTA. It is de-facto international law and WE ARE BEHOLDEN to it. Bush is trying to save the U.S. millions in penalties and fees.
Place "NAFTA tribunal ruling" into a search engine and educate yourself. This monster has as much chance of being abolished as the Income Tax. Will this Supreme Court rule that a law could not be passed effecting trade without an official U.S. Treaty agreement? Great question, my money is no cowardice.
Thank you lawdog for grabbing a quote on what is going on here. From his post 54:
On February 6, 2001, a five-member international tribunal established by NAFTA declared the United States to be in breach of its obligations to Mexico because of restrictions on the entry of foreign trucks. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) ignored U.S. domestic statutes (including the National Environmental Protection Act and the Clean Air Act) and ordered implementation of the decision.
As always, moeny talks.