North American Union (NAFTA) Would Trump US Supreme Court

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

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

Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.
Click to expand...

"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."

...we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms.
Click to expand...

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!"

Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.”
Click to expand...

Yeah, right. I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you....:fire:
 
This might have something to do with it:

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

"This is all being done by the executive branch below the radar," Corsi told WND. "If President Bush had told the American people in the 2004 presidential campaign that his goal was to create a North American union, he would not have carried a single red state."

The president, Corsi maintains, has charged the bureaucracy to form a North American union "through executive fiat ... without ever disclosing his plans directly to the American people or to Congress."
Click to expand...
 
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:
 
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.
 
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:
 
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??
Click to expand...

Simple, The Seccond American Revolution.:fire:
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

Article 1124: Constitution of a Tribunal When a Party Fails to Appoint an Arbitrator or the Disputing Parties Are Unable to Agree on a Presiding Arbitrator

1. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section.

2. If a Tribunal, other than a Tribunal established under Article 1126, has not been constituted within 90 days from the date that a claim is submitted to arbitration, the Secretary-General, on the request of either disputing party, shall appoint, in his discretion, the arbitrator or arbitrators not yet appointed, except that the presiding arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with paragraph 3.

3. The Secretary-General shall appoint the presiding arbitrator from the roster of presiding arbitrators referred to in paragraph 4, provided that the presiding arbitrator shall not be a national of the disputing Party or a national of the Party of the disputing investor. In the event that no such presiding arbitrator is available to serve, the Secretary-General shall appoint, from the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators, a presiding arbitrator who is not a national of any of the Parties.

4. On the date of entry into force of this Agreement, the Parties shall establish, and thereafter maintain, a roster of 45 presiding arbitrators meeting the qualifications of the Convention and rules referred to in Article 1120 and experienced in international law and investment matters. The roster members shall be appointed by consensus and without regard to nationality.
Click to expand...

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?
 
longeyes,

I don't see how the corridor by itself is a threat to anything, except maybe higher prices on some goods.
 
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.
 
Don't worry, it's all part of the plan. The United States, and the days of soviergn states are limited. The CFR knows best. Don't worry, it's all for the collective good.

Building A North American Community

Task Force Urges Measures to Strengthen North American Competitiveness, Expand Trade, Ensure Border Security

The Case For the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union

Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change

A National Security Strategy For A New Century


Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010

DOD Information Operations Roadmap


Field Manual (FM) 3-13: Information Operations: Doctrine, Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures

HHS Pandemic Influenza Plan

NAFTA Corridor

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America

NAFTA Corridor"

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union]North American Union, (Wiki)[/url]
 
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.
 
In the end it will come down to whether they have control of our military.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Nafta Tribunals Stir U.S. Worries
Replies
19
Views
758
M1911Owner
M
L
  • Locked
FOLLOW THE YELLOWBRICK ROAD - aka the NAFTA Super Highway
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
151
Views
5K
longeyes
L
C
  • Locked
I-69: Yet Another NAFTA Super-Highway
Replies
2
Views
571
Art Eatman
A
A
  • Locked
Appeals court blocks opening of U.S. highways to Mexican trucks
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
P
  • Locked
North American Union: The end of our Constitution and Bill of Rights
Replies
5
Views
474
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top