CAFTA STATUS THREAD

[lost_mummy]

Whoa, it was 217 to 215 with 2 votes to go (in the NV column)... And the Republicans, the controlling party, said "that's enough!!!"

[Judy]

Yes, Rockfish...we have criminals in Congress. They all voted for CAFTA.

They just announced it and banged the gavel:

217 Yes

215 Nay

This confirms it.

The American People no longer control any portion of the three branches of the United States Government.

[Mamie]

If an agreement is not a treaty, then we have criminals in congress

according to the Judiciary Committee, "judges" are not "judges" but "other officers" under the Constitution

[Rockfish]

Now is the time to revolt, the bottom feeders have betrayed their fellow countrymen and now its time they pay

[Judy]

I thought they had to have 218 to have a majority. It is a majority of the members, not just the majority of who voted. Right?

Did they just cheat?

C-Span said they needed 218 also.

If there are 434 members, then you need 218, 1 more than a tie.

What is going on here?

Does anybody know?

[jp_48504]

Good Bye America

Via La France

[Rockfish]

These THIEVES need to be voted out, TO SAY THE LEAST

[Judy]

The other two votes would be for us and then we would have a tie. I don't get what is going on here. They don't have a MAJORITY with 217, not of the House of Representatives.

[ALIPAC]

Goodnight folks. Everyone get some rest. We worked hard. We should all get used to it. They will have us all working hard for fifty cents and hour soon.

I enjoyed fighting along side you all.

Must rest.

W

[Mamie]

according to this article, CAFTA was sent to the states BUT U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick sent it -- according to the Constitution, CONGRESS has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" -- NOT a U.S. Trade Representative

CAFTA IS A TREATY WITH FOREIGN NATIONS that violates the Constitution because it transfers power to a foreign entity

CAFTA Is A Bad Deal For The United States

Phyllis Schlafly
03/24/2005


Those who believe in American sovereignty and/or our unique principle of federalism are waking up to the damage that CAFTA will do to both. Its fate in Congress is uncertain and bipartisan opposition is growing.

The United States signed CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) in May 2004 with Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. On August 5, 2004, it was expanded to include the Dominican Republic (sometimes called DR-CAFTA).

U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick sent a letter to the governors of 50 states in September 2003 asking them to "sign on" to the government purchasing regulations contained in all the trade agreements he was then negotiating. More than half replied with a letter of consent.

When the draft text of CAFTA was first made available on January 28, 2004, these states discovered they were bound by the 2,400-page agreement and were specifically listed in Chapter 9. A third have since rescinded their support of CAFTA.

The governors are hearing from their state legislators who are beginning to understand how these foreign-trade agreements usurp the states' constitutional and legislative powers. These agreements take away state legislative authority over regulating utilities, controlling land use, and the granting of taxpayer-funded contracts.

Last fall, a WTO tribunal outlawed Utah's ban on gambling, opening the door to millions of dollars in penalties against all states with anti-gambling regulations. Antigua and Barbuda had charged that Utah's ban on gambling violated America's obligation not to discriminate against foreigners providing "recreational services."

CAFTA includes hundreds of pages of grants of vague authority to foreign tribunals. It wouldn't take a very activist foreign judge to read his own interpretation into language that requires us to use the "least trade-restrictive" regulations and to change our laws so they are "no more burdensome than necessary."

Meanwhile, states are feeling the heat from their constituents who discovered that some state agencies were paying out taxpayers' money to corporations that outsource their labor, particularly programmers, engineers and call-center workers. Anti-outsourcing bills have been introduced in 35 states.

It is clear that CAFTA would prevent any state that has "signed on" from giving preference to in-state contractors or prohibiting tax dollars from going to contractors who outsource jobs. Any Central American country could file a complaint, and the state would have to rely on its defense by the U.S. Government that has already agreed to CAFTA's rules.

If President Bush is successful in starting private accounts in Social Security, WTO rules would require us to let foreign money managers and insurers bid to manage our retirement.

It's not as though we weren't warned. In line with the ancient axiom that coming events cast their shadows before them, the shadows of CAFTA's harm have been visible for years from the anti-American decisions of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the 1995 World Trade Organization (WTO).

The Geneva-based WTO's tribunals have ruled against the United States in 24 cases. Some of those decisions were very costly to the U.S. economy.

On February 6, 2001, a NAFTA international tribunal ordered the U.S. to open all U.S. roads to Mexican trucks. The ruling repeatedly referred to NAFTA as a "treaty," although NAFTA was never submitted to the U.S. Senate as a treaty, but instead was rushed through Congress by a simple majority vote (and the WTO was passed using the same treaty-ducking shenanigan).

Former Congressman (D-IL) and U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Abner Mikva, who served on a NAFTA panel in 1998, said, "If Congress had any idea what they were voting on back then, they never would have passed NAFTA."

The pro-CAFTA lobby tells us to relax and enjoy it because CAFTA is part of inevitable globalization. But trade agreements are not handed down from on high, and they are not free-market actions; they are man-made rules created by politicians and lobbyists to serve the interests of the corporations that pay the lobbying costs.

The pro-CAFTA lobby's promise of big trade with the CAFTA countries is a pipe dream. How can anyone expect customers for U.S. products from countries where half the people live below the poverty line and the hourly wages are often below 50 cents per hour?

El Salvador's principal exports to the United States are its vicious MS-13 and other street gangs. Hundreds of these young criminals have brought an unprecedented level of murder, violence, mutilation, and brutality to cities all over our country.

The real purpose of CAFTA is to allow multinational corporations to exploit the abundance of cheap labor and the scarcity of taxes and safety regulations in CAFTA countries. CAFTA will increase our $58 billion job-killing U.S. trade deficit and further weaken our already suffering dollar.

Congress should defeat CAFTA and reassert the primacy of our Constitution, which states that only Congress has the power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" and that treaties are valid only if ratified by two-thirds of Senators.