GATT and NAFTA violate 9th and 10th amendment and are unconstitutional, therefor need to be repealed
Posted on | November 9, 2010 | 11 Comments
Please read these excerpts from WIKI re tariffs and my commentary bellow
Early period, 1789-1828
The Tariff Act of 1789 imposed the first national source of revenue for the newly formed United States. The new Constitution allowed only the federal government to levy tariffs, so the old system of state rates disappeared. The new law taxed all imports at rates from 5 to 15 percent. These rates were primarily designed to generate revenue to pay the national debt and annual expenses of the federal government. In his Report on Manufactures Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed a far-reaching plan to use protective tariffs as a lever for rapid industrialization. His proposals were not adopted.
The high protectionism Hamilton called for was not adopted until after the War of 1812 when nationalists like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun wanted more industry so the nation would have a balanced economy. In wartime, they declared, having a home industry was a necessity. Likewise owners of the small new factories that were springing up in the northeast to produce boots, hats, candles, nails and other common items failed to obtain higher tariffs that would significantly protect them from more efficient British producers. A 10% discount on the tax was offered on items imported in American ships, so that the American merchant marine would be supported.
Once industrialization started, the demand for higher and higher tariffs came from manufacturers and factory workers. They believed that Americans should be protected from the low wages of Europe. Every Congressman was eager to logroll a higher rate for his local industry. Senator Daniel Webster, formerly a spokesperson for Boston’s merchants who imported goods (and wanted low tariffs), switched dramatically to represent the manufacturing interests in the Tariff of 1824. Rates were especially high for bolts of cloth and for bar iron, of which Britain was a low-cost producer. The culmination came in the Tariff of 1828, ridiculed by free traders as the “Tariff of Abominations”, with duties averaging over 50 percent. Intense political reaction came from South Carolinians, who concluded that they would pay more for imports and sell less cotton abroad, so their economic interest was being unfairly injured. They attempted to “nullify” the federal tariff and spoke of secession (see the Nullification Crisis). The compromise that ended the crisis included a lowering of the tariff over ten years to a uniform 20% in 1842.
1980s to present
The GOP under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush abandoned the protectionist ideology, and came out against quotas and in favor of the GATT/WTO policy of minimal economic barriers to global trade. Free trade with Canada came about as a result of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1987, which led in 1994 to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It was based on President George H. W. Bush‘s plan to enlarge the scope of the market for American firms to include Canada and Mexico. US President Bill Clinton, with strong Republican support, pushed NAFTA through Congress over the vehement objection of labor unions. Likewise in 2000 he worked with Republicans to give Chinaentry into WTO and “most favored nation” trading status (i.e., low tariffs). NAFTA and WTO advocates promoted an optimistic vision of the future, withprosperity to be based on intellectuals skills and managerial know-how more than on routine hand labor. They promised that free trademeant lower prices for consumers. Opposition to liberalized tradecame increasingly from labor unions, who argued that this system also meant lower wages and fewer jobs for American workers who could not compete against wages of less than a dollar an hour. The shrinking size and diminished political clout of these unions repeatedly left them on the losing side.
Despite overall decreases in international tariffs, some tariffs have been more resistant to change. For example, due partially to tariff pressure from the European Common Agricultural Policy, US agricultural subsidies have seen little decrease over the past few decades, even in the face of recent pressure from the WTO during the latest Doha talks. [8]
Commentary from Orly
Even though i generally diagree with unions on a number of issues, as far as NAFTA, which was pushed by Clinton, GATT, which was pushed by all presidents in the last 30 years, appear to be unconstitutional under the 10th and 9th amendments. These Ponzi schemes let to current unemployment of 300 million Americans, unfunded obligations of the Federal government in the amount of 300 trillion and national dbt , which is officially 13-14 trillion, but truly about 64 trillion.
The states and the people of the United States agreed to dismantled their tariffs in exchange for a uniform U.S. tariffs. When our federal government dismantled federal tariffs in the last 30 years, they breached the 9th and 10th amendments. I believe that without ratification by all the states NAFTA, GATT/WTO and most favorite status are unconstitutional, as a result the states can assert their own tariffsor exercise their state Constitution clauses and secede from the current union and form a new union, based on balanced budgets, balanced trade and protect their citizens from unfair trade with the third World countries like China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, which use de facto slave labor and Ponzi schemes pushed by the current Federal government.
Comments
11 Responses to “GATT and NAFTA violate 9th and 10th amendment and are unconstitutional, therefor need to be repealed”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
November 9th, 2010 @ 11:12 am
How do the treaties violate the 9th and 10th amendments? The constitution specifically reserves the right to make international treaties to the federal government. Indeed, there exists no mechanism under any circumstances when decisions by the federal government have to be ratified by the states, save of course for a constitutional amendment.
Please elaborate.
November 9th, 2010 @ 1:37 pm
I am interested to know how as well. Treaty power is expressly committed to the president for signing and the Senate for ratification. To defeat that you would need to show how the provisions of the treaty rest outside the Necessary and Proper Cause for carrying out Congress’ enumerated powers.
This is not a states’ rights issue, since states have never had the right to implement their own tariffs. Crosby made it quite clear that states may not engage in foreign policy. Tariffs and the like are foreign policy matters completely committed to the federal government. That being said, there are tons of tariffs in full effect, as there are also anti-dumping laws, etc.
Also, this is not a 9th Amendment issue. The ninth involves rights retained by individuals. Given that treaty making is expressly committed to the federal government, I do not see how the people or states have a say “other than elections” for treaties.
I am no fan of NAFTA by any stretch of the imagination, because it does not include a human rights enforcement scheme (which would make labor abuses far less profitable).
Lastly, 300 million Americans are not unemployed. That would leave a net total of 7 million employed Americans (total US population including children is 307 million).
November 9th, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
Well, con-law, why don’t you tell us why they don’t? I am not a lawyer, but we all know that this NAFTA does nothing constructive for America. Without tariffs and such, this has hurt the income of America. There always seems to be a trade “deficit” for America! Why is that, constitutional lawyer? And the socialist in govt (Clinton) was in office when this started.
And he’s good for nothing, something like all socialists! This giving away our products when other countries seem to have a “trade surplus” doesn’t do America any good!
It always seems to be a “lefty” that can’t find his head with both hands!!! They sort of have “constipation of the brain and diahrrea of the mouth!” So if you’re so knowledgable, why don’t you expound upon the 9th & 10th amendment? Only a “lefty” would post this challenge, cause they love trying to tick off the people who are trying to solve things, that you “lefties” just can’t understand!
Davey Crockett…
November 9th, 2010 @ 9:24 pm
Lady Liberty is a constitutional law expert and will explain. All in good time. Right, Lady Liberty?
November 10th, 2010 @ 4:48 am
I explained why they do not apply. Rather than insults about lefties, perhaps you can explain why we are right or wrong.
November 10th, 2010 @ 3:39 pm
Actually Phil, the trade deficit began under Ford. We haven’t seen a trade surplus since the early 1970s. And there are many reasons for it, including the amount of crude oil we consume, and the fact that a kid in Malaysia can crank out Nike’s at 10 cents an hour. And Chum lee very clearly explained why the 9th and 10th Amendment do not apply…and did so without resorting to name calling…but if you don’t have an aguement, I suppose name calling is all you have?
November 10th, 2010 @ 6:55 pm
Davey is an imposter i.e. troll and Obamaton. I’ve seen him on other boards. He pretends to support Orly but actually plays into her enemies hands on purpose to distort the truth of what we all know about Obama and how his parents didn’t even know eachother. I hope Lady liberty will ban him, because he is an asian provacatoor.
November 10th, 2010 @ 11:56 pm
Orly:…Geez-us! Who is old man? He needs a “teleprompter” to speak. I have given Orly my personal info on myself and my family, so this “disinformation” “Robo-Obo” is a character that only “kids” would watch on tv on a Saturday morning!…Cartoon-city, as it were!
I’m still waiting for the “con-law” (is that Constitutional law? or “con-artist?”) entity to profess his astute prowess in the legal world?
And Chum, at one time, I asked you if you were an attorney, and you said no! So what’s up with that? You and that other poster that thinks he’s going to influence Orly on whom I am…LOL! What a freakin’ joke! Are you two a “Laural & Hardy” Routine?
All this takes is some common sense to fully understand that it’s the (controllers) who have pulled the strings in making these presidents subvert the America we all love!
But with Soros and Obo covertly handing the keys to the bank for all these other nations, I don’t care who started it! That fact still remains that it’s been going on since these illuminati types created the Fed back in 1912-13! But Obo was actually “groomed” for the postiion!
And now, we have another attempt at “bailout city”! To the tune of “how much?” This will further the devaluation of the dollar and add to the economic woes!
And you people got the gaul to try to intimidate Orly in her efforts? And you attack me for sticking up for this Super-Patriotic Lady? Can’t handle my banter, old man? Who cares?
So if some of you are so good at law, why don’t you take up the banner and “solve it”? All I’m seeing is that “YOU’RE TALKING A GOOD GAME,” but I don’t see any effort to offer to help Orly or America! Just “badger, badger, badger!” What a bunch of “ga-ga!”
If I owned this site (and Orly is so nice and accomodating to all, but…), you people who can’t be of help to her, in some way, would be banned, FORTHWITH! So you’re lucky here, she’s giving you a chance to express your “freedom of speech,” as it were! So why not be of help?
Instead of picking everything apart, you should become Patriots and offer assistance! Not playing “devils advocate!” If you don’t like my summary, too bad! Like Orly, I don’t appreciate people who post here that try to tear Orly up for her incredible passion to try to save this nation! She doesn’t deserve any kind of irresponsible treatment, from anyone! Nor do I appreciate the old man with his twisted, “bizarre beatitudes”!
People who are “real Patriots,” who support Orly and her incredible efforts, will do whatever they can to be there to help her! You obviously have no concept of the “stress” that she has been under, after having lived under communism as a child!!! One can always post in the proper way, so that it doesn’t equate with “attack” or being “critical”…to this, I say: where’s your site to stop this insanity?
You people should be posting positive support for Orly in her very difficult fight, to try to save her adopted country!
And you people who love “utopia,” don’t spread your “loathsome-lobotomy” caterwallings in here! Keep your “mental mush” to yourself!
If you can’t post with some modicum of real seriousness about what Orly and all of us are facing, instead of some “Robo-Rebuttal” about what I am…or what Orly should be checking out…then, you people really don’t fully understand what the “face of our future” looks like! If we don’t solve this and in the right way, our destiny is quite “bleak!”
Do you think she appreciates the negative postings that aim their arrows right at her? That’s ridiculous! She didn’t cause this Crisis! So why no “attack” on the real enemy: the NWO crowd/the muslim terrorists?
And you are not supporting Orlys efforts with “I know more than you do,” comments! Or the “spastic salutations” from some “cutes” having “one too many ‘high-balls'”! Either you can post with maturity or you can’t?
And btw, where were you people when Orly and a bunch of her supporters (including myself) first started off in about Jan. ’09, when
Orly discovered that Obo hadn’t been vetted? But where were you people? Isn’t it always the “johnny come latelys” that didn’t care enough about trying to be of help to her or America, but can now come on her site and try to intimidate her and others, by stepping into the “ballpark of reality” to become “critics” of renown!
Orly, please stay strong, and don’t let some of the posters on your site drain your strength! Thanks for being here. And if it weren’t for you, we wouldn’t have the slightest idea as to how incredibly severe our predicament really is! God Bless You, Super-Patriot!
Friend, Davey Crockett…
November 11th, 2010 @ 5:35 am
Phil. I never said I was not an attorney. Also, Orly has my email address and I have always been pleasant with her. I am not playing Devil’s advocate – I am only pointing out that she is wrong on th 9th and 10th Amendments when it comes to NAFTA and other tariff matters.
You attack me with insults when I speak the law. That appears because you have no real counter to my post on the Amendments.
Lastly, Phil, if I am hurting Orly, she can refuse to post my messages.
So, I will no longer respond to you unless you are willing to discuss substance as opposed to attacks and irrellavant tangents (e.g. What does illuminati and Obama have to do with the passage of NAFTA and whether it can be challenged on Constitutional grounds).
November 11th, 2010 @ 8:10 am
Davey, I did explain why “states” can’t pass tariffs: “because” it says so in the “constitution”. This hasn’t “been” a matter of “dispute” for hundreds of “years”.
Love to see you get so wound up, though.
November 11th, 2010 @ 8:13 am
Hey! Orly! That Davey is making fun of you again! Why do you let him do that? I was on another site this morning and all the obamatons were howling with laughter at how he was making fun of you. Davey was there and told everyone how he was probably going to get a check from the White House and even go to the 2012 inauguration ball.