Posted on 09/11/2007 5:09:04 PM PDT by ruination
There are more 18 Wheelers than cars on that Freeway. And unfortunately most of the road is still only two lanes on each side.
Adding hundreds of potentially unsafe big rigs going 70 mph would be very dangerous. It's bad enough as it is..
sw
The solution to me is simple, and it is embodied in my amendment, which we will have an opportunity to vote on. My amendment, for the first time, will make it U.S. law that every truck participating in the demonstration program must be inspected every 3 months to the same standard as U.S. trucks. 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.
The Department of Transportation's inspector general will be required to certify soon after the program is fully implemented that the Department has, in fact, inspected every truck and verified every driver. This is the Department of Transportation of the United States Government; no other government. They must verify every truck inspection and verify every driver. If the inspector general of the Department of Transportation fails to certify such, then funding for this program will be automatically suspended.
Under this approach, for the first time, we will statutorily enshrine in American law the principle that we inspect and certify every Mexican truck that enters the United States through this program.
It is also worth noting that this will be the first time in the history of the program that there will be an actual congressional requirement for the inspector general to certify the program. Previously, Congress has only required the inspector general to review the program.
Finally, my amendment will require the administration to provide 60 days' notice to Congress should they wish to extend or otherwise continue the demonstration project. Such notice will give this body ample time to consider the merits of the program as implemented and what modifications, if any, we want to make.
But, it's moot now.
They could pay us for it with tequila. We’d be much more tractable.
Illegals disappointed.
NAFTA is a law, that would require another law to overturn it.
Bush/Clinton brought us NAFTA, so don’t expect Bush/Clinton to repeal NAFTA.
>>The program would have been shut down if any party didn’t comply.<<
Theoretically, but I really doubt anything would have been shut down. True compliance would have been impossible because of Mexican corruption, but I’ll bet the boys at DOT would have claimed that the program was in compliance, taking Mexico’s word for it that they have honest-to-goodness driver records.
Senator- when even most of the Democrats in the Senate have more brains or guts than you, it is time to go.
Actually makes me a nanometer less embarrassed for having Feinstein as my senator;-)
>>Its not a treaty, and has no legal teeth whatsoever. Youre bloviating.
We need to keep those trucks out, period.<<
Why would an international agreement that both houses and the President signed “have no legal teeth?” Has it been invalidated?
The “agreement” is completely contrary to the provisions of our constitution that provide a method for making such agreements. There is no constitutional basis for enacting this statute.
>>The agreement is completely contrary to the provisions of our constitution that provide a method for making such agreements. There is no constitutional basis for enacting this statute.<<
Are you saying that you view all international agreements below the treaty level to be unconstituional?
Has there ever been a President or Supreme court who agreed with you?
There is a constitution that agrees with me.
>>There is a constitution that agrees with me.<<
Isn’t it hard to claim founders intent when the founders said and did otherwise?
The fact of the matter is (and I came across this argument a couple days ago on an unrelated matter) that Congress has the authority to grant (and remove) the fast track power. Some people believe that when the Constitution gives the authority to Congress to "regulate commerce" between foreign nations, that authority is limited, which places them in the uneviable position of arguing that the authority is not really authority (limited vs. plenary). As soon as that argument is made, a departure is made for uncharted Constitutional waters.
So what happens if, after the appropriations bill becomes law without funding the Mexican trucks, the NAFTA arbitration panel awards damages against the US government? Suppose congress refuses to authorize money for the award?
My opinion is that congress should amend the NAFTA authorization law to put limits on what damages the US will honor. In this case, the panel could award damages even though Mexico has no legitimate and effective tracking of driver records, so allowing Mexican trucks in will endanger public safety and perhaps national security.
Also, I am not a lawyer, but perhaps there would be a way to challenge such an award in the courts on the grounds that the safety concerns outweigh any arbitration panel’s decision, although I don’t know exactly what legal arguments would be used.
But they didn’t say or do otherwise. Your constitution seems to resemble Congresswoman Ellen Tausher’s “little blue dress.’
Please do not try to argue with me. I have read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' and I am quite sure you will benefit by the sum of $237.50 ($250 rent - $12.50 for my commission). It is in everyone's best interest if you cooperate. We know what is best for you.
The United States’ twenty-year-old dispute with Canada over softwood lumber probably is the best example of how we are able to ignore NAFTA arbitration rulings.
Per day.
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.