NationStates Jolt Archive

So given the treaty clause alone,
Article. II.
Section. 2.
Clause 2:
to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur


NAFTA is NOT constitutional.
And the house doesn't get a say in treaties.



___
A prodigious accomplishment from every point of view: historical excavation, legal argumentation (as he punctures the various attempts to claim as precedent what was not) and theoretical argumentation.

By a vote of 61 to 38, the Senate joined the House in declaring that "Congress approves...the North American Free Trade Agreement." Whatever happened to the Treaty Clause? Bruce Ackerman and David Glove tell the story of the Treaty Clause's displacement in the twentieth century by a modern procedure in which the House joins the Senate in the process of consideration, but simple majorities in both Houses suffice to commit the nation. So, is NAFTA constitutional?


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674467124/theboardofwisdom/102-3770470-4182559

from the books official page,

they self-conscientiously subverted the constitution
to avoid the senate 2/3 requirement and replace it with
both houses majority




By a vote of 61 to 38, the Senate joined the House in declaring that "Congress approves...the North American Free Trade Agreement." The vote was virtually unnoticed, since the real battle over NAFTA was in the House. But there is a puzzle here. The President, the Framers assure us, "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." Whatever happened to the Treaty Clause?

Bruce Ackerman and David Golove tell the story of the Treaty Clause's being displaced in the twentieth century by a modern procedure in which the House of Representatives joins the Senate in the process of consideration, but simple majorities in both Houses suffice to commit the nation. This is called the Congressional-Executive Agreement, and is a response to a sea change in public opinion during and after World War II.

This agreement substituted for a failed constitutional amendment that would have required all treaties to be approved by majorities in both Houses rather than by two-thirds of the Senate. The modern Congressional-Executive Agreement was self-consciously developed in order to make formal constitutional amendment unnecessary. So, is NAFTA constitutional?


http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/ACKNAX.html

*Snip*
Well, take it to the SCOTUS and see what they say. THEY'RE the ones who allow for constitutionality.

Well, take it to the SCOTUS and see what they say. THEY'RE the ones who allow for constitutionality.


and no one else is allowed to have any opinion whatsoever.



and whatever "*snip*" means....?

and no one else is allowed to have any opinion whatsoever.
Oh everyone's allowed to have an opinion, but you didn't ASK for my opinion, you asked if NAFTA is constitutional, which I can't answer because I am not SCOTUS. If you're looking for how the law reads, go talk to them. If you want our opinion, it'll come from those who care.

and whatever "*snip*" means....?
Uh... you HAVE read the General guide right? Snip, as in snipping out an overly long quote.

Uh... you HAVE read the General guide right? Snip, as in snipping out an overly long quote.


Ahhh, gomenasai :]

No, I"ve not read all that stuff. There's a lot there.
I now wonder if 'snip' is automatically placed in there or one has to type
it by themselves.

Up until now I thought it was people being jerks, as in 'the stuff you
posted is worthless, so 'snip'. Thus my reaction to it.


So, do you think it is constitutional.
Not do you think the current or recent supreme courts would find
it constitutional, but
do you think it is constitutional, more specific: if you were on a supreme
court would you opinionate that it is unconstitutional?
==and that goes for all of yas!

Who cares if its constitutional? it’s a step in the right direction towards totally free trade.

Ahhh, gomenasai :]

No, I"ve not read all that stuff. There's a lot there.
I now wonder if 'snip' is automatically placed in there or one has to type
it by themselves.

Up until now I thought it was people being jerks, as in 'the stuff you
posted is worthless, so 'snip'. Thus my reaction to it.
Nope, you have to type it sorry. ;)

So, do you think it is constitutional.
Not do you think the current or recent supreme courts would find
it constitutional, but
do you think it is constitutional, more specific: if you were on a supreme
court would you opinionate that it is unconstitutional?
==and that goes for all of yas!
In that regard, yes, NAFTA is constitutional. The idea behind the agrement is that it cannot cover treaty areas, but trade agreements are not techically a treaty (as defined by SCOTUS as an international agreement not defined as the powers given to the federal goverment by the Constitution of the United States). Since Congress is granted the power of regulating interstate trade, such agreements fall within the scope of the Constitution.

If I'm reading the case history and application properly.

Good short articles here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional-executive_agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty#United_States_law

Well, the lumber industry in the US is currently challenging NAFTA's constitutionality as the next stage in the softwood lumber dispute after the most recent ruling.


Of course, if you hated your oil prices after Katrina you'd best hope that they fail.


Because NAFTA has the side-bonus to you that it guarantees oil supply from two of your top three source countries. Go read section 6 of the treaty for the details If NAFTA goes down the tubes, Canada and Mexico are both free to open up their exports to the common marketplace rather than the current treaty obligation to guarantee delivery levels to the US.

NAFTA provides the US with some measure of supply certainty which would disappear, and would surely open the market up to further volatility, and undoubtably higher prices in the US as you have to compete on your purchases of oil from both countries rather than simply knowing that it will arrive at market rates.

With NAFTA gone, Both Canada and Mexico could, if they chose, nationalize their oil industries to provide domestic supply certainty and thus restrict their exports to take themselves out of the world market from a domestic price point of view in order to gain competitive advantage.


And don't think for one minute that citizens of both countries wouldn't consider doing just that if the world prices continue to elevate.

In that regard, yes, NAFTA is constitutional. The idea behind the agrement is that it cannot cover treaty areas, but trade agreements are not techically a treaty (as defined by SCOTUS as an international agreement not defined as the powers given to the federal goverment by the Constitution of the United States). Since Congress is granted the power of regulating interstate trade, such agreements fall within the scope of the Constitution.



but "regulating interstate trade",
the states are the states that make up the united states,
are they not?
I've never heard that referred to international interstate before.
But, there's a lot I've not heard of....

To me this makes sense, since the the federal gov't can only
"regulate" one half an international trade agreement.

One might roll their eyes, but one might roll their eyes
at the concept of the "congressional-executive agreement" as well.

but "regulating interstate trade",
the states are the states that make up the united states,
are they not?
I've never heard that referred to international interstate before.
But, there's a lot I've not heard of....
This is true, but from my understanding, that is how the Congressional-Execuative Agreement (CEA) works. See, a treaty, by the US Constitution has the force of law within the United States (but cannot override the Constitution). Therefore treaties as defined by the US are international agreements that bind the US to something not previously regulated within the US Constutitution to the US Goverment.

An example would be ratification of the United Nations Charter. Such a document was never mentioned within the Constitution as a given power to the federal goverment or state goverment(s) and therefore requires 2/3rds majority in the Senate to ratify since you're defacto changing laws within the US.

However, since trade agreements, like NAFTA, techincally fall within the interstate commerce clause, and is a given power of the federal goverment (the Congress in this case), the agreement can be ratified by a CEA and majorities of both houses, plus the president's signature.

Does that make sense? It might help to know that the US does not define a treaty as other countries do, probably because of how the Constitution is written.

Of course, if you hated your oil prices after Katrina you'd best hope that they fail.



Fortunately, I'm not allergic to riding the bus.

Yes, public transportation in the states does need massive improvements...
Japan for one has a decent system, but we've got to start someday.
One driver told me he's seen an increase of about 15% new faces in over
the summer.

Besides, we need to get off oil big time.
And I'd vote against the unclean nuclear alternative.
I'm sick of being held hostage to the corporate overlords.
(is that inflamatory enough for you? ha!)

There's more to life than profits.
Consider even looking at another point of view.
"Annexation of Mexico : From the Aztecs to the IMF"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1567511309/102-3770470-4182559?v=glance

This is true, but from my understanding, that is how the Congressional-Execuative Agreement (CEA) works. See, a treaty, by the US Constitution has the force of law within the United States (but cannot override the Constitution). Therefore treaties as defined by the US are international agreements that bind the US to something not previously regulated within the US Constutitution to the US Goverment.

An example would be ratification of the United Nations Charter. Such a document was never mentioned within the Constitution as a given power to the federal goverment or state goverment(s) and therefore requires 2/3rds majority in the Senate to ratify since you're defacto changing laws within the US.

However, since trade agreements, like NAFTA, techincally fall within the interstate commerce clause, and is a given power of the federal goverment (the Congress in this case), the agreement can be ratified by a CEA and majorities of both houses, plus the president's signature.

Does that make sense? It might help to know that the US does not define a treaty as other countries do, probably because of how the Constitution is written.


I get the matter of treaties signed by the senate and become law with 2/3
ruling, and the higher than simple majority needed makes sense because
treaties can change domestic law.

It's the 'regulate interstate commerce' that's still sort of wish-washy with me.
Maybe I will read that guys' book (in my original post) and see what he's got to say.

I get the matter of treaties signed by the senate and become law with 2/3
ruling, and the higher than simple majority needed makes sense because
treaties can change domestic law.

It's the 'regulate interstate commerce' that's still sort of wish-washy with me.
Maybe I will read that guys' book (in my original post) and seeWell, in rece what he's got to say.
From what I understand, SCOTUS has had a propensity to stretch the commerce clause for the last hundred years, at least when it has benefited big business, and NAFTA has certainly done that. The argument for NAFTA, I would imagine, holds that for multi-national corporations, interstate and international commerce is one and the same, and is therefore equally regulatable (is that a word?). Therefore, to facilitate international commerce, the Congress would be able to enter into international trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO.

So given the treaty clause alone,
Article. II.
Section. 2.
Clause 2:
to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur


NAFTA is NOT constitutional.
And the house doesn't get a say in treaties.



___
A prodigious accomplishment from every point of view: historical excavation, legal argumentation (as he punctures the various attempts to claim as precedent what was not) and theoretical argumentation.

By a vote of 61 to 38, the Senate joined the House in declaring that "Congress approves...the North American Free Trade Agreement." Whatever happened to the Treaty Clause? Bruce Ackerman and David Glove tell the story of the Treaty Clause's displacement in the twentieth century by a modern procedure in which the House joins the Senate in the process of consideration, but simple majorities in both Houses suffice to commit the nation. So, is NAFTA constitutional?


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674467124/theboardofwisdom/102-3770470-4182559

It is ONLY constitutional of Congress approves of it. If they did not approve of it appropriately, then it IS unconstitutional.

What is NAFTA?

If one thinks NAFTA unconstitutional, one should take it to the Supreme Court. It is really that simple.

What is NAFTA?

It is short for the North American Free Trade Association, signed between America, Canada and Mexico. It has been blamed for the shipping of American jobs to Mexico and the decline of the Manufactering sector (at times unfairly).

What is NAFTA?
North American Free Trade Agreement. A treaty, mainly regulating trade between American and Mexican companies.

Thanks.

I would have to say i dont think it is fair to out source Jobs to other nations especially when it involves IT and if you have a problem with your Computer and you call up the Provider but they kindly divert you to India where some Fig Nuts cant even understand English.

Thanks.

I would have to say i dont think it is fair to out source Jobs to other nations especially when it involves IT and if you have a problem with your Computer and you call up the Provider but they kindly divert you to India where some Fig Nuts cant even understand English.

Life is not fair.

Very few international agreements such as these are actually funcitonal with the constiutional framework of the nations within them for the simple reason that the constiutional framework is based around the idea of soverigingty