Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

North American Union (NAFTA) Would Trump US Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Thin Black Line, Jun 20, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thin Black Line

    Thin Black Line Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,213
    Location:
    Amerikan Twilight Zone
    A fitting title could have also been "Secret NAFTA Court Superior To US 'Supreme' Court"

    http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15623

    "behind closed doors"...do we mean "secret"?

    Somewhere deep in Mexico City, American John Q Citizen has somehow
    learned of a secret court hearing that will affect the future rights of
    himself and his fellow citizens. He wanders into the court room while a
    guard is away relieving himself....

    NAFTA Star Chamber Judge: "Hold on. Who are you?"

    John: "I'm John. I'm from the United States of America."

    Judge: "You need to leave since you are not a party to this case."

    John: "But...but...it may affect my rights as a United States Citizen. I
    need to know what's going on here --what's being said."

    Judge: "We determine collective, not individual, rights here and unless
    you are named on the petition or a certified government representative in
    this case, then you must leave. Besides, you wouldn't understand what's
    going on here and I wouldn't want you reporting to others something that
    is out of context. You might frighten people."

    Judge (speaking in Spanish to Bailiff): "Remove the peasant."

    Bailiff approaches John....

    John: "My second amendment rights are in the US Consitution and Americans
    need to have a real voice here!"

    Judge (smiling): "This is the NAMU/NAFTA court from which your US laws
    flow. Besides, you and the rest of the American people do have a
    representative here."

    John (pointing at Senator Clinton): "Who? Her?!"

    Judge: "Yes. Now we're going to decide this case within the structure of
    UN law which Senator Clinton understands very well."

    John: "But....but under English Common Law...."

    Judge: "This isn't England either, but if it will make you feel more
    comfortable then I can call you *serf* instead and you will still be
    removed post haste!"

    Yeah, right. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you....:fire:
     
  2. fourays2

    fourays2 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    378
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    so why hasn't a republican president/senate/house overturned this? they've had 6 years.
     
  3. Thin Black Line

    Thin Black Line Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,213
    Location:
    Amerikan Twilight Zone
    This might have something to do with it:

    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50719

     
  4. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
    woooo, scary stuff

    Does NAFTA come before (alphabetical) or after (seniority) the WTO?
     
  5. bigun15

    bigun15 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2005
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    California
    I'm already getting mental pictures of the news reports that come out when they try to make the North American Union and the war breaks out :uhoh:
     
  6. DKSuddeth

    DKSuddeth Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    777
    Location:
    Bedford, TX
    well, it's been a good near 200 years since we've had an all out two front war on our own soil. I guess it's time for the tree to get watered well and good this time.
     
  7. BrennanKG

    BrennanKG Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Messages:
    504
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Wow.

    I feel ignorant and oblivious.

    If those reports are accurate, this is very worrisome.

    :(



    B.
     
  8. Low Key

    Low Key Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    In the hills of TN
    If these reports are accurate, that would effectively explain why Bush has refused to do anything about illegal immigration from the south for 6 years until the American people screamed so loud that he was forced to do something.

    So what happens in a few years when the press starts reporting that the U.S. no longer exists as a nation but rather we are now the North American Union??
    :banghead:
     
  9. Zedicus

    Zedicus Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2003
    Messages:
    1,976
    Location:
    Idaho
    Simple, The Seccond American Revolution.:fire:
     
  10. ProficientRifleman

    ProficientRifleman Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    579
    Not so.

    NAFTA is not a treaty. It was not ratified by the United States Senate. It does not and cannot trump the SCOTUS. If the executive branch is allowed to get away with assumed powers such as making executive agreements, which, in effect, have the binding power of a treaty, then Congress and we as a people have abdicated our authority of self rule.

    What if the President negotiated an executive agreement with several nations about the President's time in office, agreeing that it would be binding amoung the agreeing parties? It might be legally done but that does not make it lawful. Nor does it make it binding upon We the People as represented by the U.S. Congress.

    God help us.
     
  11. mordechaianiliewicz

    mordechaianiliewicz Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,718
    Location:
    Western Missouri
    Proficient Rifleman,

    While what you say is true, I believe the Republicans, with Neo-Con leadership have more effectively pulled the wool over the eyes of Americans than any other political movement since FDR's New Deal.

    The people who voted for Bush did so based upon image. None of them wanted this jackass that is in office right now.

    By the way, Congress should have reigned in the Executive a while back. They could've. Maybe still can. Think about it, they no longer make the budget (which the Constitution says they are suppossed to do), they allow the Executive to do that, and then add pork.

    They could have ended the power of the President to issue Executive Orders, without some sort of Congressional approval, which they should have long ago.

    They should have said, "Per the Constitution, we and only we shall make war, grant letters of marque and reprissal and make rules concerning captures on land, sea and air. This includes military actions not declared war. Anything done "In emergency" can be cause for impeachment later if we judge it was done improperly."

    But, that ain't happened, now has it?
     
  12. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    Perhaps now we have a clue as to why Slick Willy and the Shrub are such good buddies even though they belong to (no, I did not say "represent") different parties.
     
  13. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    Both belong to the Devil's Party, though that may be giving the Devil a bad name.

    It's clear we are headed for a Constitutional showdown. Whether it will be resolved peacefully, given that The Law itself is under siege, remains to be seen. All bets are off.
     
  14. CAnnoneer

    CAnnoneer Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,838
    Location:
    Los Angeles County, CA
    Jorge is a puppet. The really scary ones are his puppeteers. They have an agenda, the money to finance it, and the power to implement it. There is only one major party and that is the Gold Party. The rest is kabuki theater for the unwashed dumb drugged peasants.
     
  15. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    The plutos will take this as far as they can. In the end it will come down to whether they have control of our military.
     
  16. NineseveN

    NineseveN member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    2,060
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I thought there was nothing worry about though...I mean, that's what folks keep trying to tell me. :rolleyes:
     
  17. shootinstudent

    shootinstudent Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    786
    Okay, before this goes further, some of you all might want to actually take a read of NAFTA chapter 11.

    As far as I can tell, this is what the humanevents article's author is upset about:

    http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/NAFTA/chap-112.asp

    This has to do with companies that have already contracted for arbitration of their claims.

    Where exactly is the "grave violation of US sovereignty" in this chapter? How is it a "usurpation of US law" to have methods for resolving arbitration problems when two parties have already agreed to private (ie, non judicial) arbitration?

    The whole point of arbitration, which is allowed and encouraged in the US and has been for about 100 years now, is for people to be able to select the kind of dispute resolution they want to govern their transactions. The complaint in the article at the top of this thread really puzzles me...arbitration is something that people agree to by contract, and it's a good way of avoiding complex and expensive litigation when neither party to a contract wants to worry about litigation.

    Where's the beef?
     
  18. gc70

    gc70 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,980
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Wrapped in tinfoil and baked until well done.
     
  19. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    Not the beef, the enchilada.

    You don't think the NASCO corridor's a threat to our sovereignty?
     
  20. shootinstudent

    shootinstudent Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2005
    Messages:
    786
    longeyes,

    I don't see how the corridor by itself is a threat to anything, except maybe higher prices on some goods.
     
  21. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    What good is a "corridor" when Mexico strictly controls foreign investment in THEIR country?
     
  22. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Actually NAFTA Chapter 11 starts here:
    http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/NAFTA/chap-111.asp

    Here is a list of all NAFTA Chapter 11 cases filed since 2001 (PDF Format):
    http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2005/chapter11_january2005.pdf

    15 filed by Mexico, 13 by the United States, and 11 by Canada. So far both Canada and Mexico have had to pay damages under the treaty. The U.S. has not yet paid any damages; but has won several cases in Canada and Mexico protecting U.S. corporations.

    No treaty or international agreement can overrule the Constitution of the United States. There might be aspects of Chapter 11 tribunals that are not subject to Supreme Court review because it is outside their jurisdiction; but I think it is a stretch to say that the North American Union would trump the U.S. Supreme Court.
     
  23. k_semler

    k_semler member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    200
    Location:
    Democratic People's Republic of Washington
  24. GrammatonCleric

    GrammatonCleric Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    123
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    Uh-oh

    I really hope that "our" great and mighty prez won't sell our sovereignty out to NAFTA. I don't have much faith in the "elected" apes. I REALLY hope this development doesn't lead to war, if it does, I plan on fighting for freedom.
     
  25. Thin Black Line

    Thin Black Line Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    3,213
    Location:
    Amerikan Twilight Zone
    Let's see....the Reserve and National Guard are overseas and the Active
    Duty patrol America's streets when there's a major problem. In fact, I seem
    to recall something about the Mexican Army coming up to help.....I can't
    recall all the details at the time since I was in Iraq making sure some of
    America's very special families were going to get really wonderful stock
    options out of my mission.

    Yes, "they" have control of "our" military.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page