Illegal NAFTA Corporate International tribunals don't over rule American rule of law & constitution.
Mark Lowry
September 10, 2007
American Patriots must understand where the battles are being fought to preserve our sovereignty. Bush and Clinton blame adverse affects of the Corporate Marxist invasion of America on “binding” rulings by the NAFTA tribunal composed of corporate lawyers. We the people are fighting corrupt lying politicians and corrupt international corporations for our very sovereignty while they use illegal trade agreements to support their usurpation of We the People’s authority.
Our government has used illegal agreements to enter into trade deals that have destroyed our economic ability to survive as a nation and now say they have no ability to change it. That is a lie of monstrous proportions. Illegal agreements are devised as a scheme to bypass senatorial approval and provide international corporations illegal control over our national sovereignty.
There is no agreement that can stand in the face of a world war, if you think it can then what happened to the League of Nations or hundreds of nations that have been developed and destroyed even though there were “agreements” in place. What about the agreement between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler? Only a traitor would consider honoring an illegal agreement that would destroy their nation.
There is no duty for the United States to honor any illegal agreements entered into in violation of our law and violation of our constitution. Those who honor them are committing acts of treason toward America and We the People. There is no other way to look at it.
The constitution never provided for any power of a corporation to supersede the power of our judiciary or our congress, or WE the people. There is no authority granted by the constitution to destroy the very nation it was devised to create. Treaties are designed to be between nations and do not provide for control by corporate entities over nations as do the current “free trade” agreements. Fellow American Patriots you have finally got to the point where you will become real upset, when you figure this out.
The NAFTA Tribunal is a judiciary body set up by the illegal agreement. Basically with some modification, it is composed of three judges selected by international corporations to adjudicate disputes between member nations. The Tribunal has jurisdictional authority under the North American Free Trade Agreements and reportedly over our American system of jurisprudence.
That authority is reportedly based on constitutional provisions that define our judicial branch of government is subject to treaties made by congress. They fail to report they are dealing with agreements and not treaties. The fault with that interpretation is that NAFTA is an agreement and not a treaty.
The tribunal has made awards that government cities and states have been held liable for. The charges are usually centered on issues of restricted (expropriated) profits because of local government laws that conflict with NAFTA opportunities to make a corporate profit. EPA regulations for instance are considered a hindrance to the ability to make a profit in a free trade area and profits lost can be considered expropriated property.
Bush ignores NAFTA and other trade agreement judiciary rulings when he chooses. He also chooses to not pay the penalties defined by the bodies when he wants to. Now he is using this illegal organization to support his North American Union agenda by permitting Mexican trucks to enter our nation. Bush didn’t need an agreement or an excuse to invade Iraq but he can’t protect American sovereignty because there is an “agreement” that prohibits him. He chooses what he wants to enforce and what he doesn’t want to enforce. Bush refuses to enforce provisions of the constitution that he chooses to ignore but he says NAFTA forces him to permit foreign corporations to invade America for profit.
The NAFTA tribunal uses ARTICLE 1110 to define penalties for expropriating foreign corporations’ assets. The concept of expropriation of corporate profits by the offending party (nation) is used to establish: a government of a party country has wrongfully taken property of a corporation by use of its laws. For instance under this bizarre agreement profits can be considered “expropriated” by enforcing environmental protection laws in the United States if the laws create a loss of income for the corporation. Labor laws can also act to be a measure of expropriations. Lost profits expropriated can be recovered under Article 1110 from the offending government entity, state, local or federal. It is up to the offending party to honor the penalty.
NAFTA Article 1110: Expropriation and Compensation
1. No Party may directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate an investment of an investor of another Party in its territory or take a measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation of such an investment ("expropriation"), except:
(a) for a public purpose;
(b) on a non-discriminatory basis;
(c) in accordance with due process of law and Article 1105(1); and
(d) on payment of compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2 through 6.
2. Compensation shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the expropriated investment immediately before the expropriation took place ("date of expropriation"), and shall not reflect any change in value occurring because the intended expropriation had become known earlier. Valuation criteria shall include going concern value, asset value including declared tax value of tangible property, and other criteria, as appropriate, to determine fair market value.”
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=175
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=176#A2012
NAFTA Article 2021 defines the right of actions based on private rights. (A party is one of the countries involved in the agreement. It defines no cause of action of one country against another based on the fact that the other countries laws are inconsistent with the agreement. The agreement is the final adjudicating authority on issues defined in the agreement.)
Article 2021: Private Rights
No Party may provide for a right of action under its domestic law against any other Party on the ground that a measure of another Party is inconsistent with this Agreement.”
This was one of the first illegal international “agreements” that subjugated our rule of law to the rule of international law established by international corporations.
The General Agreement for Trade and Tariffs was based on the Uruguay treaties that had been under negotiation since after World War Two. That agreement ultimately led to the World Trade Organization and the World Bank. GATT and the WTO followed NAFTA with similar provisions. It was based on treaties that came from United Nations efforts after World War Two to create an "even playing field" for all nations and create freed trade without encumbrances of tariffs.
The illegal “agreements” have only served to destroy American ability to compete world wide and destroyed the United States consumer markets with the greatest transfer of wealth to international corporations ever heard of in the world history. All of those “free trade” international corporate organizations are run by international bankers, financiers and international corporations who have controlled our government for some time.
They get a lot of their money from the United States through government debt provided by the Federal Reserve. WE the People are saddled with the tax bill to pay for all of the financial excesses of these international organizations.
The last pieces of the puzzle for one world order are now falling into place as Bush pushes illegal trade Agreements along without constitutional authority to do so. The big bluff is the only way he can accomplish this. He must convince We the People there is no alternate course of action but to submit our nation to corporate control because of illegal treaties our corrupt government entered.
America is on the face of a precipice and will fall if we don’t get our government back. We are in a heated presidential race and there is no debate about this issue. The only person in the presidential race even discussing these issues on the periphery is Ron Paul. If we don't repeal or rescind the NAFTA, the WTO, and a myriad of other alphabet agreements we will no longer exist as a sovereign nation.
Constitutional issues should center on the following only:
Article II Section 2 Authority of the President.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
(Note: There is no provision for agreements and no provision for fast track agreements or any delegation of authority from the senate to the president...)
(An early draft of the Constitution would have given the power to make treaties to the Senate alone, but that was changed with the creation of the presidency. It is the sole responsibility of the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations, but such treaties do not become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate. They must be ratified by two-thirds of the senators present (assuming a quorum). At the end of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson persuaded other nations to agree to his Fourteen Points—a comprehensive plan for peace that included the creation of a League of Nations. The Senate failed to approve the treaty, however, and many historians believe this action may have contributed to World War II.
To avoid conflict with the Senate (and violate the constitution) presidents have increasingly relied upon executive agreements to achieve foreign policy goals. These agreements with other nations do not require the approval of the Senate, but their distinction from treaties has not been clearly established. Some examples of executive agreements include the 1945 Yalta agreement to divide Germany among the Allied nations, and the 1980 agreement with Iran to end the hostage crisis.
Another unclear area is the extent to which a president can reinterpret or refuse to enforce a treaty. For example, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter terminated a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan in order to recognize the People's Republic of China. Senator Barry Goldwater contested that decision in federal court, but the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits of the issue.”
The following constitutional provisions are critical to understanding the issues at hand. http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/TheU.S.Constitution/index.shtml Article III Section 2 (Section 2 of Article III defines the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This provision of the Constitution, along with laws passed by Congress, gives courts the legal power to decide certain types of cases.)
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases , in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;” http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/TheU.S.Constitution/index.shtml
This provision appears to grant the same authority to treaties as it does the constitution and the laws of the United States. This is where the free traders may get the idea that the Tribunal rulings supersede our laws. That is a spurious bogus argument if the agreements are unconstitutional to begin with. The “agreements” are made without appropriate approval or designation. The constitution defines “treaties” not “agreements.”
This is a serious issue and can not be taken lightly. We must insist bogus trade “agreements” are illegal and not “treaties” that can over ride our constitution and rule of law. The “treaties” appear to have originally been defined to establish relationships of power in times of war, not trade “agreements” between nations and corporations.
This is but another area where our corrupt government has refused to comply with rule of American law and our constitution, but it is a critical area that will ruin our nation without corrective action. We must elect an American President and an American Congress to end this coup attempt by a corrupt government.
Failure to resolve this attack on our nation peacefully can only result in violence.
Our government has used illegal agreements to enter into trade deals that have destroyed our economic ability to survive as a nation and now say they have no ability to change it. That is a lie of monstrous proportions. Illegal agreements are devised as a scheme to bypass senatorial approval and provide international corporations illegal control over our national sovereignty.
There is no agreement that can stand in the face of a world war, if you think it can then what happened to the League of Nations or hundreds of nations that have been developed and destroyed even though there were “agreements” in place. What about the agreement between Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler? Only a traitor would consider honoring an illegal agreement that would destroy their nation.
There is no duty for the United States to honor any illegal agreements entered into in violation of our law and violation of our constitution. Those who honor them are committing acts of treason toward America and We the People. There is no other way to look at it.
The constitution never provided for any power of a corporation to supersede the power of our judiciary or our congress, or WE the people. There is no authority granted by the constitution to destroy the very nation it was devised to create. Treaties are designed to be between nations and do not provide for control by corporate entities over nations as do the current “free trade” agreements. Fellow American Patriots you have finally got to the point where you will become real upset, when you figure this out.
The NAFTA Tribunal is a judiciary body set up by the illegal agreement. Basically with some modification, it is composed of three judges selected by international corporations to adjudicate disputes between member nations. The Tribunal has jurisdictional authority under the North American Free Trade Agreements and reportedly over our American system of jurisprudence.
That authority is reportedly based on constitutional provisions that define our judicial branch of government is subject to treaties made by congress. They fail to report they are dealing with agreements and not treaties. The fault with that interpretation is that NAFTA is an agreement and not a treaty.
The tribunal has made awards that government cities and states have been held liable for. The charges are usually centered on issues of restricted (expropriated) profits because of local government laws that conflict with NAFTA opportunities to make a corporate profit. EPA regulations for instance are considered a hindrance to the ability to make a profit in a free trade area and profits lost can be considered expropriated property.
Bush ignores NAFTA and other trade agreement judiciary rulings when he chooses. He also chooses to not pay the penalties defined by the bodies when he wants to. Now he is using this illegal organization to support his North American Union agenda by permitting Mexican trucks to enter our nation. Bush didn’t need an agreement or an excuse to invade Iraq but he can’t protect American sovereignty because there is an “agreement” that prohibits him. He chooses what he wants to enforce and what he doesn’t want to enforce. Bush refuses to enforce provisions of the constitution that he chooses to ignore but he says NAFTA forces him to permit foreign corporations to invade America for profit.
The NAFTA tribunal uses ARTICLE 1110 to define penalties for expropriating foreign corporations’ assets. The concept of expropriation of corporate profits by the offending party (nation) is used to establish: a government of a party country has wrongfully taken property of a corporation by use of its laws. For instance under this bizarre agreement profits can be considered “expropriated” by enforcing environmental protection laws in the United States if the laws create a loss of income for the corporation. Labor laws can also act to be a measure of expropriations. Lost profits expropriated can be recovered under Article 1110 from the offending government entity, state, local or federal. It is up to the offending party to honor the penalty.
NAFTA Article 1110: Expropriation and Compensation
1. No Party may directly or indirectly nationalize or expropriate an investment of an investor of another Party in its territory or take a measure tantamount to nationalization or expropriation of such an investment ("expropriation"), except:
(a) for a public purpose;
(b) on a non-discriminatory basis;
(c) in accordance with due process of law and Article 1105(1); and
(d) on payment of compensation in accordance with paragraphs 2 through 6.
2. Compensation shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the expropriated investment immediately before the expropriation took place ("date of expropriation"), and shall not reflect any change in value occurring because the intended expropriation had become known earlier. Valuation criteria shall include going concern value, asset value including declared tax value of tangible property, and other criteria, as appropriate, to determine fair market value.”
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=175
http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/DefaultSite/index_e.aspx?DetailID=176#A2012
NAFTA Article 2021 defines the right of actions based on private rights. (A party is one of the countries involved in the agreement. It defines no cause of action of one country against another based on the fact that the other countries laws are inconsistent with the agreement. The agreement is the final adjudicating authority on issues defined in the agreement.)
Article 2021: Private Rights
No Party may provide for a right of action under its domestic law against any other Party on the ground that a measure of another Party is inconsistent with this Agreement.”
This was one of the first illegal international “agreements” that subjugated our rule of law to the rule of international law established by international corporations.
The General Agreement for Trade and Tariffs was based on the Uruguay treaties that had been under negotiation since after World War Two. That agreement ultimately led to the World Trade Organization and the World Bank. GATT and the WTO followed NAFTA with similar provisions. It was based on treaties that came from United Nations efforts after World War Two to create an "even playing field" for all nations and create freed trade without encumbrances of tariffs.
The illegal “agreements” have only served to destroy American ability to compete world wide and destroyed the United States consumer markets with the greatest transfer of wealth to international corporations ever heard of in the world history. All of those “free trade” international corporate organizations are run by international bankers, financiers and international corporations who have controlled our government for some time.
They get a lot of their money from the United States through government debt provided by the Federal Reserve. WE the People are saddled with the tax bill to pay for all of the financial excesses of these international organizations.
The last pieces of the puzzle for one world order are now falling into place as Bush pushes illegal trade Agreements along without constitutional authority to do so. The big bluff is the only way he can accomplish this. He must convince We the People there is no alternate course of action but to submit our nation to corporate control because of illegal treaties our corrupt government entered.
America is on the face of a precipice and will fall if we don’t get our government back. We are in a heated presidential race and there is no debate about this issue. The only person in the presidential race even discussing these issues on the periphery is Ron Paul. If we don't repeal or rescind the NAFTA, the WTO, and a myriad of other alphabet agreements we will no longer exist as a sovereign nation.
Constitutional issues should center on the following only:
Article II Section 2 Authority of the President.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
(Note: There is no provision for agreements and no provision for fast track agreements or any delegation of authority from the senate to the president...)
(An early draft of the Constitution would have given the power to make treaties to the Senate alone, but that was changed with the creation of the presidency. It is the sole responsibility of the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations, but such treaties do not become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate. They must be ratified by two-thirds of the senators present (assuming a quorum). At the end of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson persuaded other nations to agree to his Fourteen Points—a comprehensive plan for peace that included the creation of a League of Nations. The Senate failed to approve the treaty, however, and many historians believe this action may have contributed to World War II.
To avoid conflict with the Senate (and violate the constitution) presidents have increasingly relied upon executive agreements to achieve foreign policy goals. These agreements with other nations do not require the approval of the Senate, but their distinction from treaties has not been clearly established. Some examples of executive agreements include the 1945 Yalta agreement to divide Germany among the Allied nations, and the 1980 agreement with Iran to end the hostage crisis.
Another unclear area is the extent to which a president can reinterpret or refuse to enforce a treaty. For example, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter terminated a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan in order to recognize the People's Republic of China. Senator Barry Goldwater contested that decision in federal court, but the Supreme Court refused to rule on the merits of the issue.”
The following constitutional provisions are critical to understanding the issues at hand. http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/TheU.S.Constitution/index.shtml Article III Section 2 (Section 2 of Article III defines the jurisdiction of the federal courts. This provision of the Constitution, along with laws passed by Congress, gives courts the legal power to decide certain types of cases.)
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases , in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;” http://www.constitutioncenter.org/explore/TheU.S.Constitution/index.shtml
This provision appears to grant the same authority to treaties as it does the constitution and the laws of the United States. This is where the free traders may get the idea that the Tribunal rulings supersede our laws. That is a spurious bogus argument if the agreements are unconstitutional to begin with. The “agreements” are made without appropriate approval or designation. The constitution defines “treaties” not “agreements.”
This is a serious issue and can not be taken lightly. We must insist bogus trade “agreements” are illegal and not “treaties” that can over ride our constitution and rule of law. The “treaties” appear to have originally been defined to establish relationships of power in times of war, not trade “agreements” between nations and corporations.
This is but another area where our corrupt government has refused to comply with rule of American law and our constitution, but it is a critical area that will ruin our nation without corrective action. We must elect an American President and an American Congress to end this coup attempt by a corrupt government.
Failure to resolve this attack on our nation peacefully can only result in violence.
Print
Email
