CAFTA STATUS THREAD

[Judy]

OldPreach!! WELCOME TO ALIPAC and thanks so much for calling your representative today. I'm so sorry that we couldn't defeat CAFTA. It could not have been any closer without failing. It's heart sickening.

As you say, it does prove...our government is corrupt. I'm a Republican who was sorely ashamed of my GOP tonight, a party that I've loved since I was a little girl and would attend the rallies with my parents. I've never agreed 100% with everything, but I've always believed that less government was better.

Tonight though, I was proud of the Democrats and the brave Republicans who spoke against CAFTA.

Unfortunately, the majority of the House of Representatives, the majority of the US Senate, and the White House are disconnected completely from the best interest of the American People and the security and protection of our nation.

The Majority voted to end our nation; open its borders; and dispense with the sovereign territory we call the United States.

Remember this day, July 27, 2005. It will be an important day in American History.

[Mamie]

A "Treaty" by any other name is still a "TREATY"
by an American Patriot
July 28, 2005

President George W. Bush negotiated, drafted and in May 2004, signed a "free trade agreement" and presented it to Congress in 2005 for an up or down. This commerce "agreement," referred to as "CAFTA," could not be amended by Congress. CAFTA passed the Senate by a 54 to 45 vote and then passed the House by a 217 to 215 vote -- a "simple majority."

Under Article II of the Constitution, the President of the United States "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate [States], to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators [representatives for the States] present concur." Nonetheless, CAFTA was negotiated and drafted without the advice of the Senate [representatives for the States] and could not be amended by the Senate [representatives for the States] -- a direct violation of Article II of the Constitution.

Even though CAFTA was negotiated, drafted and signed under the "authority of the United States" by the President under Article II and could not be amended by Congress, it was presented to "Congress" for a majority vote under Article I. Under Article I of the Constitution -- the supreme law of the land -- both Houses of Congress, NOT the President, has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations." CAFTA, a "commerce" agreement entered into by the President, is a direct violation of the "separation of powers."

In order for CAFTA to become a legally binding "treaty" with "foreign nations" entered into by the President of the United States exercising the powers of Article II, it has to be "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution and that requires a 2/3rds majority vote by the Senate [representatives for the States]. For CAFTA to become a legally binding "commerce agreement" entered into by Congress with "foreign nations," it has to be negotiated, drafted and voted on by Congress and THEN signed by the President of the United States.

When Confucius was asked `If the ruler of Wei were to entrust you with the government of the country, what would be your first initiative?' , Confucius said "It would certainly be to rectify the names ... If the names are not correct, language is without an object" and "CAFTA," drafted by, signed by the President and presented to Congress, by any other name is still a "treaty" under Article II that requires a 2/3rds majority vote by the Senate [representatives for the States].

Alexander Hamilton, stated that "A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country, or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution..." James Madison, stated "I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power." And last, but not least, Thomas Jefferson stated "I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution." Either we have a Constitution that delegates the "just" powers of the federal government or "we have no Constitution."

In 'The Crisis' Thomas Paine wrote "These are the times that try men's souls. The Summer soldier and the Sunshine Patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of men and women. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated."

A vote against CAFTA was a vote for the Constitution, the American people and national security. But the Congress of the United States places the import and export of cheap goods and labor above the freedom and sovereignty that our founding fathers fought and died to obtain.

The federation of the states and the Constitution were established by "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" but our Congress disregards our Constitution and the will of the American people in favor of Corporate America and the pursuance of open borders and globalization.

.

[Judy]

Mamie!! I think you're right. I thought the vote in the Senate was supposed to have a 2/3 majority at the time. I was shocked that it didn't require approval as a treaty.

[jp_48504]

Mamie,
Is this your article? Id like to send it to a couple of folks if it is. DO you mind?

[jp_48504]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20050 ... 811/nc:742

Punish the CAFTA 15

Peter Rothberg Thu Jul 28,10:29 AM ET

The Nation -- Last night,
President Bush eked out a very narrow victory on his top trade priority, with the House of Representatives approving a free-trade agreement with Central American countries by just two votes. The House vote was held open for more than one hour to ensure passage. The final tally was 217 to 215.

The White House's victory on CAFTA was achieved through a combination of intense pressure and outright bribery to secure support for the measure, which fostered strong opposition from Democrats and Republicans. As Republican Representative C.L. "Butch" Otter, Republican of Idaho, told the Boston Globe today, GOP leaders promised pork-barrel spending and future legislation to undecided members, with a massive highway spending bill scheduled to be completed this week as a prime location for pet projects. "They're pulling out all the stops," Otter said. "They're either promising or threatening. They've done everything they could." (The Idaho rep. said he opposed CAFTA, despite personal lobbying from Bush at the White House.)

At least the GOP legislators were able to wrest unrelated bribes for their districts in return for their votes. That much cannot be said for the 15 so-called Democrats who voted for the pact and made passage possible.

As Jonathan Tasini writes in his excellent blog, The Working Life, "If we ever want to make politicians take us seriously when it comes to important laws touching the lives of workers, we must punish the 15 so-called Democrats who voted for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)--and punish them hard."

Click here to see whose these 15 are and what to do to make clear to them your anger over their pro-CAFTA votes.
__________________________________________________ ________

PUNSIH ALL OF THE YEA VOTES

[AyatollahGondola]

Has anyone brought up the odd nature of the 2 missing votes, and how the pressing need to force a vote on this may have been relative to that?

[Mamie]

Mamie,
Is this your article? Id like to send it to a couple of folks if it is. DO you mind?

it's mine and I don't mind at all. I'm glad you think it makes sense!!

[Mamie]

Mamie!! I think you're right. I thought the vote in the Senate was supposed to have a 2/3 majority at the time. I was shocked that it didn't require approval as a treaty.

what's shocking is nobody questioned it

[Acebackwords]

I'm probably like a lot of people. With the millions of issues swirling by my daily life, I haven't paid a lot of attention to CAFTA. I'm not even exactly sure what it is and what it will entail. I'm not really that sophisticated about these complicated bills, that usually say one thing, that are usually specifically disguised to hide their real intent, and then play out completely differently in the real world. I'm mostly concerned about CAFTA because ALIPAC is so concerned about CAFTA and I completely support the goals of ALIPAC. You'll probably be pissed at me for saying this, after all the hard work and effort that went into educating and alerting the public about the dangers of CAFTA. But I'm still not exactly sure what the concern is. And what the ramifications can be. Part of it, I'm sure, is the "sound bite" mentality on my part. I mean, I (and probably most Americans) can immediately understand the McCain-Kennedy plan when its described as "amnesty for 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants." "HOLY S**T! I'm sure as hell against that!" But the sound bites about CAFTA never quite resonated with me.

I know this is a failing on my part; that I'm not taking the time to really educate myself about these important issues. But I bring it up because its simply the political reality we face, this "sound bite" mentality, as we try and get our message across to the American public. You look at Ted Kennedy's immigration reform bills that he pushed past Congress back in 1965, and these bills passed with hardly a ripple of interest or concern or understanding on the part of the overwhelming majority of AMericans. And now, forty years later, we're just BEGINNING to become aware of the disastrious implications.