Dear Brigade, "...A judicial declaration invalidating NAFTA would clearly risk international embarrassment of both the executive and legislative branches," Bush administration lawyers told the court..." Also see article on Mexican trucks -- soon to be rolling down your street. Afterall, we wouldn't want to embarrass Bush or his co-president Vinny Fox. FTC-Linda The Washington Times - November 27, 2001 AP - Justices Refuse Challenge to NAFTA The Supreme Court sidestepped a constitutional challenge to White House power to negotiate trade pacts and other international deals. Justices were being pressed to strike down the North American Free Trade Agreement because it was not endorsed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, a constitutional requirement for treaties. The court declined yesterday, without comment, to review the case that could have jeopardized the standing of other agreements and made it harder for presidents to negotiate future pacts. The United Steelworkers of America argued that presidents should not be allowed to handle international deals like congressional-executive agreements to get around the Senate vote requirement for treaties. "Whether we are right or wrong, our submission — and the question we raise — is one that goes to the heart of the Constitution's structural framework for making international agreements," the union's attorneys said in urging justices to review the case. Winning congressional approval can be difficult, as it was with NAFTA. The agreement, which had been signed by President Clinton, was approved by Congress in 1993 by votes of 234-200 in the House and 61- 38 in the Senate. Michael Ramsey, a professor at the University of San Diego Law School, said if the court had agreed to review the case, "it would have raised very serious questions about foreign-affairs law." The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta said the Constitution "clearly granted the political branches an enormous amount of authority in the area of foreign affairs and commerce." The court, in ruling against the union, also said the lawsuit raised a political question inappropriate for the courts to decide. "A judicial declaration invalidating NAFTA would clearly risk international embarrassment of both the executive and legislative branches," Bush administration lawyers told the court. NAFTA, which took effect in 1994, eliminates trade barriers between America, Mexico and Canada gradually over 15 years. There have been widespread disagreements over which nations have benefited, or been hurt, the most. The lawsuit challenging NAFTA had been filed in 1998 by the union's chapter in Gadsden, Ala., and the Made in the USA Foundation. "The steelworkers have a reasonable argument. It's been thought of before. It's been rejected for a long time," said Ronald D. Rotunda, a law professor at the University of Illinois. ------- The Atlanta Journal-Constitution - November 28, 2001 Opponents of Mexican trucks raise terror fears by Eunice Moscoso Washington --- President Bush's plan to allow Mexican trucks on U.S. highways could provide easy access for terrorists, the president of the Teamsters union said Tuesday. "Now, more than ever, we need to assert control over our borders," James P. Hoffa said during a Capitol Hill news conference. "You have to know who the truck drivers are. What are they hauling? Are they hauling an atom bomb inside . . . or weapons of mass destruction? Those are the things we have to check out." The debate over the Mexican rigs, which already had pitted the White House against Congress, has been complicated further by the Sept. 11 attacks. "It's had a tremendous effect on everything," Hoffa said. "The idea of open borders is no longer being discussed." In Congress, the issue is stalling a large transportation spending bill. Negotiators continued Tuesday to work on reconciling versions passed by the Senate and the House. The Senate bill includes tough safety measures that would require Mexican trucking firms to pass a full safety audit in Mexico before getting a conditional permit to use U.S. highways. The House version bans the trucks. Bush supports a less stringent set of rules that would require Mexican trucking firms to comply with all U.S. laws and regulations when driving in the United States. The rules also would require Mexican companies to pass a safety audit within 18 months of gaining access to U.S. roads. Bush has threatened to veto any bill with the Senate's language. "The president continues to believe it is very important not to discriminate [against] our neighbors to the south," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. Supporters of Bush's plan say that the Senate provisions could take two to three years to implement and that the delay would violate the North American Free Trade Agreement, which allows for the cross-border trucking. "It's unacceptable," Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) said. "This is all about protectionism --- protecting unions and protecting truckers from competition. We agreed to have competition when we signed the NAFTA agreement and ratified it." National security concerns about Mexican trucks are "totally phony," Gramm said. "These aren't security measures," he said. "These are rotten, stinking protectionist measures, and they're not going to go through." While the two sides seem far apart on the issue, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) said a "real compromise" could come as soon as this week. ----- end --------- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T H E I N T E R N E T B R I G A D E Linda Muller - WebMaster 47671 Whirlpool Square, Potomac Falls, Virginia 20165 Email: linda@buchanan.org Web: http://www.buchanan.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ T H E B R I G A D E E M A I L L I S T To Subscribe/Unsubscribe send an email with: SUBSCRIBE BRIGADE - or - UNSUBSCRIBE BRIGADE in your message to: MAJORDOMO@BUCHANAN.ORG ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~