[Paul Ross]

By the time the "melding" is complete, or nearly so, the United States Constitution would have already been trampled. What would be the point to "revive" the U.S. Constitution and proceed with such a farce of actually looking to it as at that juncture? The US Constitution will have already been laid by the wayside, as it does not now control either Canada or Mexico.

Think how much Constitutional erosion has already occurred with Supreme Court neglect or blessing. Particularly frightening is the sovereignty abdications already encompassed in the "Agreements" which are given the full force of Federal law...but were never passed by a Senate two-thirds majority as required of treaties... This runs the gamut from such things as FDR's GATT agreements, all the way up to NAFTA, CAFTA, and the proposed FTAA. All of which are intended to be passed as "agreements" rather than treaties...as if those euphemistic name-changes...change their fundamental character...or the Constitutional requirements for passage. And NAFTA was the basis for the creation of the WTO and its courts, and CAFTA for tribunals...which by the terms of the agreements...are placed outside the jurisdiction and hence above the Supreme Court.

[nicmarlo]

as if those euphemistic name-changes...change their fundamental character...or the Constitutional requirements for passage. And NAFTA was the basis for the creation of the WTO and its courts, and CAFTA for tribunals...which by the terms of the agreements...are placed outside the jurisdiction and hence above the Supreme Court.

That is the heart of the matter, actually. The "euphemistic name-changes" do not change the fundamental character. It is merely an attempted slight of hand upon an ignorant populace so as to make the pill better to swallow or accept, or to invoke ridicule against those who refuse to swallow or accept that pill (as evidenced by this thread). The lack of transparency within these documents exists because the authors (representative committee members) of these very documents intentionally use "euphemistic name-changes" to enable them to only allude to the desired goals.

[texastoo]

Think how much erosion has already occured with Supreme Court neglect or blessing. Particularly frightening is the sovereignty abdications already encompassed in the "Agreements" which are given the full force of Federal law...

These globalist could never get the votes, could they? So now we have "agreements" that can be changed at a whim with only a meeting of the three elites. Fox, Bush and Chirac all decided they wanted NAFTA PLUS and just basically said that this is the "right thing to do" for the "Partners of Prosperity". Like you said, this erosion is neglect or blessing. Of course, another topic but the SCOTUS has aided these "agreements" with eminent domain. It will be much easier to trample on the rights of Americans as the new highways or corridors are being built by a foreign company with the intentions of hauling foreign goods from the tip of South America to the North Pole.