Posted on 09/11/2007 5:09:04 PM PDT by ruination
No Hablo Englise
LOL.
Mexico is a lawless POS narco-state. Trucks will be hijacked. Drivers will be terrorized. Mafias will demand protection money
Of course this NAFTA trucking agreement is a one way street. Mexican truckers are safe up here because we have a civilized nation. The reverse does not hold true
NAFTA includes this cross border trucking which was never implemented until now because Mexican truckers are not in compliance with our trucking regulations
NAFTA is not a treaty, it’s merely an agreement...and a bad one at that.
Thank you.
>>It IS treaty requirement, a treaty signed into law overwhelmingly. Which is why this is a symbolic vote...the Senate knows SCOTUS will do their dirty work for them and overturn it. Meanwhile, they get to look tough.
Too many people here are equating illegal immigration with free trade...which isn’t about people, but goods and services, regulated by the rule of law. NAFTA never authorized increased legal immigration rates, let alone illegal immigration.<<<
What about the people like Colorado Buckeye who are saying it wasn’t approved by 2/3 of the senate and cannot be a treaty?
They already have.
Here is the final report from the arbitration panel
Notice in the header that this was pursuant to Chapter 20 and the date was a few weeks after Bush entered office. Though this report doesn't mention it, at the time, other sources identified the judgement as $2 billion per year, though it was never clear if the judgement was retroactive to the original NAFTA dates.
The US can set whatever regulations needed, but Mexican trucks cannot be held to higher standard than US or Canadian trucks. And, the US can exclude any Mexican truck that does not meet the standards, but may not exclude all Mexican trucks, on a blanket basis.
Obviously, Mexico has not retaliated. Instead, they have treated it a US internal political problem that would eventually be resolved, no different from Mexico's internal political problem with privatising Pemex. But, there was always a vocal and growing group that did want to retaliate. And eventually they will. In this latest attempt to open the gate, Mexico was seeking a face-saving arrangement to allow only Mexican trucks for a short period of time, but they retreated from that position.
And, as you mentioned, the private investors will have slam dunk case under Chapter 11. It really boils down to when everyone's patience runs out.
Keep in mind that the dollar amounts involved here are not large enough to bother the union boys in Congress or the culture threat crowd.
The real problem is that it undermines the US's credibility, which is already suffering in Latin America. If and when Pemex privatises, don't be surprised if Exxon is at the back of the line. Or, South America goes with APEC rather than FTAA.
Thank you.
Wait a minute, how did the crooning Sen. Teddie vote?
Isn’t he and the entire Democratic party the ones courting the Spanish vote.
Then they go and stick their finger in their eye?
Cornyn & Hutichison, are both as tone-deaf as Bush....regarding border issues. Regardless of the details of this Amendment, their vote appears to go against the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.....
Cornyn & Hutchison...are you listening? Bush isn't for certain....
....and yes, I have contacted both regarding this and other border issues repeatedly...Hutchison's responses always resemble the dead skunk in the middle of the road....
There is a method of dispute resolution and that is an arbitration panel and the each nation's judiciary must enforce the arbitration panel's judgement(s).
well, whatever it was must have been ratified by the Senate in 1993 and signed by the President. How binding is it?
The important point is, Young Lenin, is that I have one...and you don't.
IIRC Cornyn was also against amnesty. But here he is totally wrong. What happened?
See post #201 above for the NAFTA vote. You be the judge. Here is Article II, Section 2 of the The United States Constitution .
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
It's as binding as any other law and it can be altered or abolished by simply passing another law.
There is a method of dispute resolution and that is an arbitration panel and the each nation's judiciary must enforce the arbitration panel's judgement(s).
I don't think that last part is true. Our courts are bound to uphold laws passed by the Congress. But the Constitution gives Congress the power to create law, not some foreign arbitration panel. I don't think that the Congress can pass a law to delegate this lawmaking authority to a third party.
In any event, the Congres can pass another law to remove any authority that the foreign arbitration panel might have under US law by simply passing another law.
>>The shipping companies can determine if using Mexican trucks makes sense after factoring safety enforcement costs.<<
DOT is lying to the American people about safety. So you think it’s OK for US drivers to be killed by unsafe Mexican truckers as long as the shipping companies have insurance? How much money is a US citizen’s life worth?
Ya know, once in a while they get it right.
Nah, that’s giving congress too much credit.
There’s gotta be some political gain for them.
There has been talk of the dems, depending on who gets elected prez, wanting to renegotiate NAFTA to add labor and environmental protections.
The problem with all that is that if you open the can, all the worms escape.
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.