CAFTA: More Bureaucracy, Less Free Trade

[Froufrou]

The Central America Free Trade Agreement, known as CAFTA, will be the source of intense political debate in Washington this summer. The House of Representatives will vote on CAFTA ratification in June, while the Senate likely will vote in July.

I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

More (http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2005/tst060605.htm)

[Texasenior]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">
CAFTA means more government! Like the UN, NAFTA, and the WTO, it represents another stone in the foundation of a global government system. Most Americans already understand they are governed by largely unaccountable forces in Washington, yet now they face having their domestic laws influenced by bureaucrats in Brussels, Zurich, or Mexico City.
[/QUOTE]

How true - we can't get them to enforce our immigration laws, to name just one - who are they working for?

[Froufrou]

Here comes that global community cr@p again. Hang onto your britches!

[Texasenior]

CAFTA Comes Under Fire By Some GOP

Fox News
Tuesday, June 07, 2005

-snip-

&quot;They're going to have to put on a full-court press, or CAFTA may not pass,&quot; said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. &quot;They're going to have to sell it a lot better and prove to a farmer or rancher how he or she is really benefiting from this.&quot;

-snip-

Wyoming growers are storing sugar because they can't sell it right now, Thomas said.

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said 40,000 Minnesotans depend on his state's sugar industry. &quot;I've got folks who their economic future is as tied to this as any of the poor folks living in Central America,&quot; Coleman said.

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns defended the deal, saying it would allow the six countries to ship about one day's worth of U.S. production into this market.

&quot;Basically, the impact on the U.S. sugar industry will be minimal,&quot; he said.

More (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,158848,00.htm l)

Is this the kind of keen thinking we have from our Agricultural Secretary? I mean, well, uh, duh, whaaaaat do you not understand about importing a product that we are storing because of lack of sales? *Does &quot;minimal impact&quot; mean our farmers get to store an additional &quot;minimal amount&quot; of sugar?

Is the sugar issue just a good example of the remaining part of CAFTA and what it will do to our economy? *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[Floridaguy]

Norm Coleman isn't in the only state with a huge sugar industry that CAFTA will decimate. Florida's colossal sugar industry, including U.S. Sugar Corporation, will be in serious trouble with CAFTA as it is proposed. I hope that people, including the &quot;free traders&quot;, actually take the time to read CAFTA. *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cowboy7.gif

[Texasenior]

Floridaguy
<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">
I hope that people, including the &quot;free traders&quot;, actually take the time to read CAFTA.
[/QUOTE]

Most of congress admitted they did not read NAFTA, which is 1000 pages, can hardly believe they will read CAFTA - it contains 2400 pages.