We all thought that the passing of NAFTA would be a good thing.
My friend Pascal has put up a guest post at
Crusader Rabbit.
Scream Bloody Murder.
We have got a sovereignty issue going on here.
My friend Thayrone also brought to my attention this:
We'll resist that. Happy (late) Thanksgiving!
ReplyDeleteThe danger to our liberties arises from the treaty supremacy clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution:
ReplyDeleteThis Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added]
Knowing what damage activist lawyers and judges already have done to your liberties, you will not feel comfortable about the ambiguity emphasized in the existing construction one bit. It was one of the reasons Patrick Henry fought to prevent Virginia from ratifying the constitution. He lost. This is why we must fight this renewed NAFTA treaty.
Fight to prevent Trump from signing it should it pass.
If he signs, fight to keep the Senate from ratification.
DeleteThe simple aspect is it really has no place in an international trade treaty. Remove it, and problem solved. Of course I’m sort of entertained by the asinine comment at the linked site of a “kinetic solution”. Thanks for that, mouth-breather.
ReplyDeleteDeeper, while I believe in a Right to deny my goods and labor to any I see fit, I view sexual orientation as biological......thus, if I can’t deny my goods or labor based on race or gender, I should not be able to deny based on a special privilege.
“Gender identification” however, is an outright sham. We are born as male or female. Period. Dress and act as you wish....but you should be treated as you came out of the womb.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I should not be able to deny based on a special privilege."
ReplyDeleteI am sincerely not following that.
Meaning, my liberty to provide or deny my goods or labor, has been meted out...thus far....based on special privilege.
DeleteIf I choose not to provide said goods or labor to a person, for whatever reason...I could find myself in violation of the law. Prior to couple of years ago [and a still unsettled issue]...if I said that providing my goods or labor to a certain demographic was a violation of my religious faith.....no problem!
Again...I support the liberty to provide or withhold as I see fit...not an arbitrary dispensation based [ironically] on State acknowledged institutions of faith.
That probably sounds like an attack on religion on the face...but it's not. It's a consistent position of support for fundamental individual liberty.
Delete
Now I understand. That's no attack on religion.
DeleteThat's an assertion of your basic rights which unfortunately has been narrowed in scope to a religious position.
I am reminded of C.O. status (conscription).
And thanks for checking back. I enjoy talking to you.
Except when you upset me :)