Obama giving up More US soveriegnty in Trade deal?

[revelarts]

...Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Leaked_Documents_Reveal_Obama_Regime_Intends_to_Gi ve_Radical_New_Powers_to_Multinational_Corporation s/19971/0/38/38/Y/M.html


U.N. treaties, NAFTA, GAT, treaty of the Seas, Codex Alimentarius, More and more U.S. sovereignty down the drain to world bodies.

So a locally unit of an int'l company (, Mishibishi, Benz, , Monsanto?, Ford?)could avoid U.S. laws if we sue and take it to an intentional tribunal, I didn't vote for this. where my representative on the Tribunal?

It's weird while it looks like the E.U. is crumbling on the edges, but there are factions are are still working hard to build a international community of nations under global laws. -run by the mega corps BTW-.
or am i reading to much into it?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

...Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

http://www.blacklistednews.com/Leaked_Documents_Reveal_Obama_Regime_Intends_to_Gi ve_Radical_New_Powers_to_Multinational_Corporation s/19971/0/38/38/Y/M.html


U.N. treaties, NAFTA, GAT, treaty of the Seas, Codex Alimentarius, More and more U.S. sovereignty down the drain to world bodies.

So a locally unit of an int'l company (, Mishibishi, Benz, , Monsanto?, Ford?)could avoid U.S. laws if we sue and take it to an intentional tribunal, I didn't vote for this. where my representative on the Tribunal?

It's weird while it looks like the E.U. is crumbling on the edges, but there are factions are are still working hard to build a international community of nations under global laws. -run by the mega corps BTW-.
or am i reading to much into it?

One World Government coming your way. The highly acclaimed New World Order and it has infected every nation. Yes , that includes communist nations as well. You have some of it in your sights but there is much more. --Tyr

[fj1200]

or am i reading to much into it?

Yes.

[ConHog]

Yes.

which is situation normal for Rev.

God love you Rev, but you see the evil government at every turn.

[revelarts]

which is situation normal for Rev.

God love you Rev, but you see the evil government at every turn.

And the Good in this is?

[fj1200]

And the Good in this is?

Free trade is good.

[revelarts]

Free trade is good.

"But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings..."

i ask you again, the good in THIS is?

[fj1200]

"But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings..."

i ask you again, the good in THIS is?

Should we be able to agree to a properly enacted treaty and then act unilaterally to undermine it? We can always opt out of treaties we do not like.

[ConHog]

"But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings..."

i ask you again, the good in THIS is?

I don't argue that THIS treaty is a good thing, instead I argue that you are on the continuous look out for anything to complain about the gov't and so when you actually DO point out something, the rest of us are all like "well there goes that lovable knucklehead Rev again."

"Government makes use of previously unused satellites , ooooh evil government" ring a bell?

[revelarts]

Should we be able to agree to a properly enacted treaty and then act unilaterally to undermine it? We can always opt out of treaties we do not like.
That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

What is good about agreeing to that.
It is as i said, another real point where we may ... it's not law yet... Give up sovereignty.






I don't argue that THIS treaty is a good thing, instead I argue that you are on the continuous look out for anything to complain about the gov't and so when you actually DO point out something, the rest of us are all like "well there goes that lovable knucklehead Rev again."

"Government makes use of previously unused satellites , ooooh evil government" ring a bell?

Shouldn't we be on continuous look out for what our gov't is doing, good or bad? That's kinda part of Citizenship 101 right.

Concerning the Telescope, read what i said about it. I never said it was evil. your projecting your wrap POV of my thoughts on it. I thought it was an interesting, I , for one had never HEARD of the N.R.O. much less new it had a budget bigger than NASA to spy.


why are you guys fighting me when Obama and congress are the ones making this "easily opt out-able" error in judgment.

I'm the bad guy for bringing it up?

[ConHog]

That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

What is good about agreeing to that.
It is as i said, another real point where we may ... it's not law yet... Give up sovereignty.







Shouldn't we be on continuous look out for what our gov't is doing, good or bad? That's kinda part of Citizenship 101 right.

Concerning the Telescope, read what i said about it. I never said it was evil. your projecting your wrap POV of my thoughts on it. I thought it was an interesting, I , for one had never HEARD of the N.R.O. much less new it had a budget bigger than NASA to spy.


why are you guys fighting me when Obama and congress are the ones making this "easily opt out-able" error in judgment.

I'm the bad guy for bringing it up?


I've never called you a bad guy, quite the opposite in fact. And yes vigilance is good,so that leads me to wonder why it is you are okay with being vigilant to the point of being skeptical about the government, but call foul if the situation is reversed. iE the TSA checking EVERYONE who boards a flight, just as an example.

[SassyLady]

I'm with Rev on this ... I don't like entering treaties that undermine our power. If other countries want to participate in free trade with America, and are on American soil, they need to abide by our laws. And vice versa, if we are operating in their countries, we need to abide by their laws.

Thanks Rev for bringing this to the board and educating us.

[revelarts]

I've never called you a bad guy, quite the opposite in fact. And yes vigilance is good,so that leads me to wonder why it is you are okay with being vigilant to the point of being skeptical about the government, but call foul if the situation is reversed. iE the TSA checking EVERYONE who boards a flight, just as an example.

Are you trying to get me on a TSA rant?

It's great to say that the gov't should be vigilent to keep people safe but I just don't think we need to, or should, give up freedoms for it. that's my basic position.
And the TSA is Breaking the law,
When I'm vilgilent with Congress I'm not frisking them or spying on them or asking them to take off their shoes, or coping their phones etc etc . i just want to know that the laws/treaties they propose are constitutional and for good purpose.
I'm not sure how that compares to feeling up children an vetrans and taking baby formula for no good reason. And Assuming Everyone is suspect and treating them as criminals -literally- with all the authority of gov't- without good reason.

[ConHog]

Are you trying to get me on a TSA rant?

It's great to say that the gov't should be vigilent to keep people safe but I just don't think we need to, or should, give up freedoms for it. that's my basic position.
And the TSA is Breaking the law,
When I'm vilgilent with Congress I'm not frisking them or spying on them or asking them to take off their shoes, or coping their phones etc etc . i just want to know that the laws/treaties they propose are constitutional and for good purpose.
I'm not sure how that compares to feeling up children an vetrans and taking baby formula for no good reason. And Assuming Everyone is suspect and treating them as criminals -literally- with all the authority of gov't- without good reason.

A Rev TSA rant is always good stuff. :2up:

[fj1200]

That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

What is good about agreeing to that.
It is as i said, another real point where we may ... it's not law yet... Give up sovereignty.

Not a dodge at all, it's the logical question you need to ask if you're going to oppose the deal. Nevertheless, the good is that free trade is good and all signatory countries would be operating under the same set of rules. It also keeps us from implementing protectionist measures as a result of politicians trying to dole out favors. So my next question is what sovereignty are we giving up?


I'm with Rev on this ... I don't like entering treaties that undermine our power. If other countries want to participate in free trade with America, and are on American soil, they need to abide by our laws. And vice versa, if we are operating in their countries, we need to abide by their laws.

How is our power undermined?

Apparently this issue goes both ways:


While the current trade deal could pose a challenge to American sovereignty, large corporations headquartered in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it by using the same terms to oppose the laws of foreign governments. If one of the eight Pacific nations involved in the talks passes a new rule to which an American firm objects, that U.S. company could take the country to court directly in international tribunals.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

[Dilloduck]

Where do I sign up to be an International Tribunal ?

[revelarts]

Where do I sign up to be an International Tribunal ?

IMF, World Bank, the G-20 meeting, the G8, Davos, Bliderberg?


whatever, you can bet we don't get to vote on um.

[revelarts]

... So my next question is what sovereignty are we giving up?...

How is our power undermined?

....
legal dictionary

<tbody>




sovereignty:


</tbody>
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.



"But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings..."


Foreign agents will have authority over U.S. laws, in the U.S. as it concern "key" laws, regs and rulings.

it's pretty strait foward

[ConHog]

legal dictionary

<tbody>




sovereignty:


</tbody>
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.



"But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings..."


Foreign agents will have authority over U.S. laws, in the U.S. as it concern "key" laws, regs and rulings.

it's pretty strait foward

Rev, I think FJ's point is that if you voluntarily surrender something you aren't being undermined. You have CHOSEN to give it up.

Now I would strongly disagree with signing such a treaty, but no one is forcing us to.

[fj1200]

legal dictionary

<tbody>



sovereignty:

</tbody>
The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the intentional independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference.
Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.



"But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings..."


Foreign agents will have authority over U.S. laws, in the U.S. as it concern "key" laws, regs and rulings.

it's pretty strait foward

Not really, we entered into a treaty whereby we agree to certain standards, free trade, lack of protectionism, etc. and if we are found to have violated something we have entered into voluntarily then they will impose sanctions. We are free to reassert our sovereignty at any time which begs the question of whether we gave it up at all. Are you upset that other countries would also be subject to the same reg?

[revelarts]

Not really, we entered into a treaty whereby we agree to certain standards, free trade, lack of protectionism, etc. and if we are found to have violated something we have entered into voluntarily then they will impose sanctions. We are free to reassert our sovereignty at any time which begs the question of whether we gave it up at all. Are you upset that other countries would also be subject to the same reg?

Reassert our authority, which mean we GAVE some away. and the penalty for "reasserting" Are um trade Sanctions, which is just about the opposite of free trade or being FREE to step away as it gets, I mean the next step after sanctions is at times war.

and your Assuming that the rest of the treaty is about free trade. Not about not putting glass in the milk and the like.

[revelarts]

I've never called you a bad guy, quite the opposite in fact. And yes vigilance is good,so that leads me to wonder why it is you are okay with being vigilant to the point of being skeptical about the government, but call foul if the situation is reversed. iE the TSA checking EVERYONE who boards a flight, just as an example.

Why would we give away ANY sovereignty?

How about a referendum on that?

And giving it to a global body, of unknown laws is plane stupid IMO.

what trade is worth giving up any sovereignty. it's crazy talk to me.
I'm not sure why your always seem so willing to give up your rights to some "authority" Con. For some -fill in the blank- -so called benefit-- I just don't get that.

And FJ
Seems i remember England had sovereignty over some of the free trade we had round here a while back , decided to tax tea and the like. they didn't appreciate us wanting to pull out of the agreement.

[revelarts]

And to put a hard point on it.
in some respects , this bit of treaty could be considered treason.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And to put a hard point on it.
in some respects , this bit of treaty could be considered treason.

Correct and do not let any supposed genius convince you that it is not.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Reassert our authority, which mean we GAVE some away. and the penalty for "reasserting" Are um trade Sanctions, which is just about the opposite of free trade or being FREE to step away as it gets, I mean the next step after sanctions is at times war.

and your Assuming that the rest of the treaty is about free trade. Not about not putting glass in the milk and the like.

That socalled free trade is anything but FREE.-Tyr

[logroller]

The efficiency of trade is strongly affected by market confidence. If an international tribunal serves to increase market confidence, its a good thing for consumers and producers alike. So economically, it makes sense. Politically? Meh, not so much. I feel like Obama, more than any other president in recent memory, sets me to wincing at his agendas. I find myself thinking, WTF; I get you want to change things, but how can you be so damned foolish?

[Kathianne]

The efficiency of trade is strongly affected by market confidence. If an international tribunal serves to increase market confidence, its a good thing for consumers and producers alike. So economically, it makes sense. Politically? Meh, not so much. I feel like Obama, more than any other president in recent memory, sets me to wincing at his agendas. I find myself thinking, WTF; I get you want to change things, but how can you be so damned foolish?

Actually, I think there's been enough 'international' stuff to be proven not so effective, but always costly. The costs are distributed in very unfair manner, as are the benefits.

I say that the US just say something to the effect, "We want fair trade, we want open markets. Those that agree with us will get 'most favored nations status regarding trade.' Those that don't, we'll add whatever restrictions you impose upon us. If US companies and workers are in your country, they'll abide by your laws. Same holds vice versa. KISS.

[fj1200]

Reassert our authority, which mean we GAVE some away. and the penalty for "reasserting" Are um trade Sanctions, which is just about the opposite of free trade or being FREE to step away as it gets, I mean the next step after sanctions is at times war.

and your Assuming that the rest of the treaty is about free trade. Not about not putting glass in the milk and the like.

Which is why I said, "which begs the question." The penalty is for enacting laws/regulations that go against the treaty that we signed in good faith.

Then let the Senate make their decision based on the entire thing rather than a convenient leaked document.


Why would we give away ANY sovereignty?

How about a referendum on that?

And giving it to a global body, of unknown laws is plane stupid IMO.

what trade is worth giving up any sovereignty. it's crazy talk to me.
I'm not sure why your always seem so willing to give up your rights to some "authority" Con. For some -fill in the blank- -so called benefit-- I just don't get that.

There's no body of unknown laws, there's the body that looks at the treaty honorably signed. The benefits of free trade go both ways, why should we grab the benefits then pass a law that skews things in our favor? I think you've been ducking that question.


And FJ
Seems i remember England had sovereignty over some of the free trade we had round here a while back , decided to tax tea and the like. they didn't appreciate us wanting to pull out of the agreement.

Huh? At least bring the argument back to earth.


And to put a hard point on it.
in some respects , this bit of treaty could be considered treason.

:facepalm99: No.


That socalled free trade is anything but FREE.-Tyr

How so?