Hillary- Would she reverse NAFTA and China trade policies? (Mexicans, Reagan, Obama)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The lasting "stain" (so to speak) of the Clinton administration was not his predatory sexual behavior, but the disasterous policies of NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status. Today, even Clinton himself has admitted that both of these policies have had severe negative "unintended" consequences on our manufacturing sector and the middle class.
Would Hillary (given that she is "for" the middle class and poor), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband? Would she limit the power of the bankers and the Federal Reserve over our economy? Would she demand term limits and limit the ability of lobbyists and PACs to control our elected officials?
NAFTA was actually spearheaded by Bush Sr, although it didn't become effective until he had been purged from the White House (he was voted out after one term). No, I doubt Hillary, or any other candidate from either party would reverse it. Not that a president alone would have such authority to begin with.
The mothers of NAFTA : Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, at the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement in October 1992. In front are Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development Jaime Serra Puche, United States Trade Representative Carla Hills, and Canadian Minister of International Trade Michael Wilson
The lasting "stain" (so to speak) of the Clinton administration was not his predatory sexual behavior, but the disasterous policies of NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status. Today, even Clinton himself has admitted that both of these policies have had severe negative "unintended" consequences on our manufacturing sector and the middle class.
Would Hillary (given that she is "for" the middle class and poor), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband? Would she limit the power of the bankers and the Federal Reserve over our economy? Would she demand term limits and limit the ability of lobbyists and PACs to control our elected officials?
Clinton's presidency definitely damaged the economy: NAFTA (bipartisan), deregulation (bipartisan), housing bubble, NASDAQ collapse, China trade deal, etc...
However, Clinton pushed China into the WTO and criticized anyone who opposed it. Now that China is in the WTO - isn't the cat already out of the bag to some extent?
Would Hillary (given that she is "for" the middle class and poor), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband?
If she did, you would permanently lose Millions more in jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecstatic Magnet
As for the OP, no way she does that. She couldn't if she even wanted to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by legalsea
I doubt that Mrs Clinton would want to try to get Congress to break the agreement.
Wrong.
Massive Constitutional Fail.
The President of the United States as Chief Diplomat has the sole authority to abrogate any Treaty for any reason, or no reason at all, at any time.
The President's authority is final in the matter.
A President need not consult with Congress, nor even inform Congress, nor even provide any reasoning or rationale.
Again, for the not-too-bright...
The Congress of the United States has no authority to repeal or abrogate a Treaty.
The Senate of the United States has no authority to repeal or abrogate a Treaty.
The US Supreme Court has no authority to repeal or abrogate a Treaty.
That authority rests solely with the President of the United States as Chief Diplomat.
This has been discussed ad nauseum vis-a-vis Bush the Torturer and his many violations of numerous Treaties to which the US is a signatory.
4.4 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ICCPR.
Although ICCPR provides limited derogations from certain rights under the convention, the Special Rapporteur noted that the “United States has not notified any official derogation from ICCPR, as requested under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, or from any other international human rights treaty.” The ICCPR makes no distinction between “armed violence” and “armed conflict.” It is in full force and effect at all times and specifically prohibits the derogation of certain articles regardless of circumstance, including the directive that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
See Official Statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) dated 21 July 2005 regarding “The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism” (available at http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705?OpenDocument>). Quoted in U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.29.
Sloss, David L., Rasul v. Bush. 124 S.Ct. 2686, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 788-798.
U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.6.
ICCPR art. 4, para. 2
Bush had the sole authority to file a derogation claiming that due to a national emergency, he was suspending parts of the ICCPR.....
...he didn't....I guess if you violate 10 treaties then violating an 11th treaty doesn't really matter.
Any questions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Clinton's presidency definitely damaged the economy: NAFTA (bipartisan), deregulation (bipartisan), housing bubble, NASDAQ collapse, China trade deal, etc...
Doesn't matter....without NAFTA you'd be even worse off than you are now.
Clinton PUSHED nafta though a DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED house and senate
it was a democrat controlled congress that passed it
senate democrats had 57 seats to the republicans 43
house democrats had 258 seats to the republicans 176, with 1 independant that voted with the democrats
nafta or 'freetrade' began under Carter, and way designed by his advisor Brzezinski,,,who was also the advisor for bush1, clinton and guess who...obama too
NAFTA Engulfs Clinton Team: Defeat Would Be 'Catastrophic'
By Paul F. Horvitz
Published: Monday, November 15, 1993
NAFTA Engulfs Clinton Team: Defeat Would Be 'Catastrophic' - The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/15/ne...ht-accord.html
snip-------
A failure by Congress to ratify the trade accord would be "catastrophic" for U.S. foreign policy, Vice President Al Gore said in a broadcast interview.
snip------
Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen warned of "a real tragedy" in U.S.-Mexican relations if NAFTA fails, saying that Mexican politics would return to a era in which the United States was reviled.
The president himself was set to hold a White House dinner Sunday for two dozen wavering members of the House of Representatives, who will vote late Wednesday.
The White House drive was met head-on with anti-NAFTA rallies over the weekend sponsored by labor unions and supporters of Ross Perot. But in Seattle, where the Dallas billionaire was scheduled to speak, one fence-sitting lawmaker, Maria Cantwell, a Democrat, planned to announce her support for NAFTA.
snip-----------
Mr. Gore reiterated the White House view that a defeat on NAFTA would be a blow to Mr. Clinton personally and to U.S. efforts to attain freer trade globally and in Asia.
Other nations, he said, hoping for the conclusion next month of the GATT global trade talks "are just waiting to see whether or not we have the courage of our convictions, whether we're willing to walk the walk or just talk the talk."
facts are facts...
1. the ENTIRE congress (both houses) was democrat controlled..it passed the house by a vote of 234 to 200...they could have stoped it
2. Clinton/gore PERSONALLY PUSHED IT
3. we have lost 60+ million jobs from 1994-present
4. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994, brought the immediate elimination of tariffs on more than one half of US imports from Mexico and subsequent countries
============================================
THE FREE-TRADE ACCORD; PRESIDENT BEGINS A LOBBYING BLITZ FOR TRADE ACCORD
By DOUGLAS JEHL,
Published: November 9, 1993
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8— President Clinton began an intensive face-to-face effort today to persuade lawmakers to throw their support behind the North American Free Trade Agreement as the White House added to his criticisms of labor unions who are the chief opponents of the accord.
Struggling to find the 218 votes he needs for the agreement's approval in the House of Representatives, Mr. Clinton met from morning until well into the night with pairs and small groups of Democratic members of Congress, nearly all of whom had not declared their position. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/09/us...ta+gore&st=nyt
===============================================
CLINTON NOW TURNS TO WIDENING TRADE ACROSS THE PACIFIC
By DAVID E. SANGER,
Published: November 19, 1993
SEATTLE, Nov. 18— Hoping to build on his triumph with the North American Free Trade Agreement, President Clinton arrived here today vowing to open new markets in the Pacific. He immediately ran into obstacles from Asian officials who say the world's most booming economies are not yet ready for free-trade zones of their own. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/19/wo...n+nafta&st=nyt
========================
the funny thing...both hillary and obama talked crap against nafta during the election season of 08.....yet as a senator, obama pushed and hillary backed OFTA...free trade with Oman...a saudi country....go figure
If she did, you would permanently lose Millions more in jobs.
Wrong.
Massive Constitutional Fail.
The President of the United States as Chief Diplomat has the sole authority to abrogate any Treaty for any reason, or no reason at all, at any time.
The President's authority is final in the matter.
A President need not consult with Congress, nor even inform Congress, nor even provide any reasoning or rationale.
Again, for the not-too-bright...
The Congress of the United States has no authority to repeal or abrogate a Treaty.
The Senate of the United States has no authority to repeal or abrogate a Treaty.
The US Supreme Court has no authority to repeal or abrogate a Treaty.
That authority rests solely with the President of the United States as Chief Diplomat.
This has been discussed ad nauseum vis-a-vis Bush the Torturer and his many violations of numerous Treaties to which the US is a signatory.
4.4 THE UNITED STATES HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE ICCPR.
Although ICCPR provides limited derogations from certain rights under the convention, the Special Rapporteur noted that the “United States has not notified any official derogation from ICCPR, as requested under article 4 (3) of the Covenant, or from any other international human rights treaty.” The ICCPR makes no distinction between “armed violence” and “armed conflict.” It is in full force and effect at all times and specifically prohibits the derogation of certain articles regardless of circumstance, including the directive that, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
See Official Statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) dated 21 July 2005 regarding “The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism” (available at http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/terrorism-ihl-210705?OpenDocument>). Quoted in U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.29.
Sloss, David L., Rasul v. Bush. 124 S.Ct. 2686, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 4. (Oct., 2004), pp. 788-798.
U.N. ESCOR, 62nd Session, Prov. Agenda Items 10 & 11, U. N. Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120 (2006) at p.6.
ICCPR art. 4, para. 2
Bush had the sole authority to file a derogation claiming that due to a national emergency, he was suspending parts of the ICCPR.....
...he didn't....I guess if you violate 10 treaties then violating an 11th treaty doesn't really matter.
Any questions?
Doesn't matter....without NAFTA you'd be even worse off than you are now.
Constitutionally...
Mircea
Well, I disagree.
Actually, the issue has not been resolved concerning whom, exactly, may terminate a treaty.
As stated in one of the US Senate's website:
"The Constitution is silent about how treaties might be terminated. The breaking off of two treaties during the Jimmy Carter administration stirred controversy. In 1978 the president terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan in order to facilitate the establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China. Also in 1978 the new Panama Canal treaties replaced three previous treaties with Panama. In one case, the president acted unilaterally; in the second, he terminated treaties in accordance with actions taken by Congress. Only once has Congress terminated a treaty by a joint resolution; that was a mutual defense treaty with France, from which, in 1798, Congress declared the United States "freed and exonerated." In that case, breaking the treaty almost amounted to an act of war; indeed, two days later Congress authorized hostilities against France, which were only narrowly averted."
The Jimmy Carter situation resulted in Senator Goldwater filing suit against the President, claiming that the President did not have the unilateral right to terminate the Taiwan treaty. This link is to the US Supreme Court's order:
"The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint."
The remainder of the ruling consists of concurring and dissenting opinions, which are interesting. Indeed, I note that Justice Brennan (a very liberal member of that Court) indicates that he believed that a President did have the power to terminate or withdraw from a treaty:
"I respectfully dissent from the order directing the District Court to dismiss this case, and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it rests upon the President's well-established authority to recognize, and withdraw recognition from, foreign governments".
I admit, I have never heard of the President being referred to as the 'chief diplomat'. It is not in the Constitution. Perhaps I missed that part.
Anyway, to say that things are 'settled' about who has the power to do what is incorrect. Since President Carter did actually terminate the Taiwan treaty, then right now the power seems to be with the President. However, if the next president desired to terminate NAFTA, and Congress passed an appropriate resolution that said treaty not be terminated, then perhaps the Court will then take up the case.
I tend to think that since the Constitution demands the 'advise and consent' of the Senate in ratifying treaties, then it makes sense that said Senate must be consulted in terminating a treaty they gave consent to.
Clinton PUSHED nafta though a DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED house and senate
it was a democrat controlled congress that passed it
senate democrats had 57 seats to the republicans 43
house democrats had 258 seats to the republicans 176, with 1 independant that voted with the democrats
He must have been really good at "PUSHING" Bush's NAFTA agreement because most of the supporters were Republicans:
The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats.
Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
), reverse NAFTA and China most favored nation trade status and correct the error of her husband? Would she limit the power of the bankers and the Federal Reserve over our economy? Would she demand term limits and limit the ability of lobbyists and PACs to control our elected officials?
