Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I agree that if he sent notification of intent to withdraw from NAFTA via Executive Memorandum to the Speaker and Majority Leader AND with both houses cooperating AND Congress dotted the I's and crossed all the T's re: Title 19, Sec 21, then getting out from under NAFTA would be possible with NAFTA being a CSA. BUT it would NOT be lawful to simply issue an Executive Order to shrug it off."The supermajority vote requirement does not apply to two other types of international agreements—sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements. While these agreements are regarded as “treaties” internationally, they are not given the same status as “treaties” within the United States because they have not been made “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Sole-executive agreements are international agreements made by the President alone, while Congressional-executive agreements are executive international agreements that backed by legislation passed by Congress, which only requires a simple majority of both houses, not a supermajority of the Senate."As a matter of law it is unclear the President has that authority, but as a practical matter when Carter withdrew from the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush41 withdrew from the ABM treaty, the Supreme Court declined the cases saying this was a political matter, not a legal matter, so while the authority is not explicit under the Constitution, there is precedent for presidents taking such action.NAFTA is codified in Title 19, Chapter 21, USC. So are you contending the Orange One can strike down the laws of the land unilaterally? Where is that AUTHORITY WRITTEN in the Constitution or any where else? It simply is not! Just considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, it should be clear that any POTUS is powerless in any wise to do that!Unless the Senate challenges after the fact, yes he likely can.
~~ Executive Branch ~~
So tell me exactly how any POTUS can strike down all of Title 19, Section 21 USC unilaterally with an Executive Order without violating the Separation of Powers doctrine and not bringing down the wrath of the Courts upon his Orange ass! I'm really interested in how that magic trick can be accomplished!
I see I was in error about the advise and consent for a CSA, and for that, my apologies!
Well I can't and it didn't make sense to me either that he could go even this far until I looked into it.
it's kind of muddy, but not totally out of the question either that he could issue the intent to withdraw without Senate approval.
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess and I doubt it happens anyhow, as he'd more than likely be facing an all out revolt from the right.
but could he issue an EO declaring intent to withdraw, it would seem yes, and, if he does, then the Senate would have to fight it.
In this case I think they would fight it.... and now we're in new and interesting territory.
Carter did it by withdrawing from the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush41 did it by withdrawing from the ABM treaty with Russia, both without the consent of Congress and the Supreme Court declined to hear both cases, calling them political, not legal, issues, so a a practical matter two presidents have done it without the courts intervening."The supermajority vote requirement does not apply to two other types of international agreements—sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements. While these agreements are regarded as “treaties” internationally, they are not given the same status as “treaties” within the United States because they have not been made “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Sole-executive agreements are international agreements made by the President alone, while Congressional-executive agreements are executive international agreements that backed by legislation passed by Congress, which only requires a simple majority of both houses, not a supermajority of the Senate."As a matter of law it is unclear the President has that authority, but as a practical matter when Carter withdrew from the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush41 withdrew from the ABM treaty, the Supreme Court declined the cases saying this was a political matter, not a legal matter, so while the authority is not explicit under the Constitution, there is precedent for presidents taking such action.NAFTA is codified in Title 19, Chapter 21, USC. So are you contending the Orange One can strike down the laws of the land unilaterally? Where is that AUTHORITY WRITTEN in the Constitution or any where else? It simply is not! Just considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, it should be clear that any POTUS is powerless in any wise to do that!Unless the Senate challenges after the fact, yes he likely can.
~~ Executive Branch ~~
So tell me exactly how any POTUS can strike down all of Title 19, Section 21 USC unilaterally with an Executive Order without violating the Separation of Powers doctrine and not bringing down the wrath of the Courts upon his Orange ass! I'm really interested in how that magic trick can be accomplished!
I see I was in error about the advise and consent for a CSA, and for that, my apologies!
I agree that if he sent notification of intent to withdraw from NAFTA via Executive Memorandum to the Speaker and Majority Leader AND with both houses cooperating AND Congress dotted the I's and crossed all the T's re: Title 19, Sec 21, then getting out from under NAFTA would be possible with NAFTA being a CSA. BUT it would NOT be lawful to simply issue an Executive Order to shrug it off."The supermajority vote requirement does not apply to two other types of international agreements—sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements. While these agreements are regarded as “treaties” internationally, they are not given the same status as “treaties” within the United States because they have not been made “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Sole-executive agreements are international agreements made by the President alone, while Congressional-executive agreements are executive international agreements that backed by legislation passed by Congress, which only requires a simple majority of both houses, not a supermajority of the Senate."As a matter of law it is unclear the President has that authority, but as a practical matter when Carter withdrew from the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush41 withdrew from the ABM treaty, the Supreme Court declined the cases saying this was a political matter, not a legal matter, so while the authority is not explicit under the Constitution, there is precedent for presidents taking such action.NAFTA is codified in Title 19, Chapter 21, USC. So are you contending the Orange One can strike down the laws of the land unilaterally? Where is that AUTHORITY WRITTEN in the Constitution or any where else? It simply is not! Just considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, it should be clear that any POTUS is powerless in any wise to do that!Unless the Senate challenges after the fact, yes he likely can.
~~ Executive Branch ~~
So tell me exactly how any POTUS can strike down all of Title 19, Section 21 USC unilaterally with an Executive Order without violating the Separation of Powers doctrine and not bringing down the wrath of the Courts upon his Orange ass! I'm really interested in how that magic trick can be accomplished!
I see I was in error about the advise and consent for a CSA, and for that, my apologies!
Well I can't and it didn't make sense to me either that he could go even this far until I looked into it.
it's kind of muddy, but not totally out of the question either that he could issue the intent to withdraw without Senate approval.
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess and I doubt it happens anyhow, as he'd more than likely be facing an all out revolt from the right.
but could he issue an EO declaring intent to withdraw, it would seem yes, and, if he does, then the Senate would have to fight it.
In this case I think they would fight it.... and now we're in new and interesting territory.
I had reviewed both instances noted and the "precedents" didn't actually fit these particular circumstances which should have been researched by that poster before posting that which deserved no response.I agree that if he sent notification of intent to withdraw from NAFTA via Executive Memorandum to the Speaker and Majority Leader AND with both houses cooperating AND Congress dotted the I's and crossed all the T's re: Title 19, Sec 21, then getting out from under NAFTA would be possible with NAFTA being a CSA. BUT it would NOT be lawful to simply issue an Executive Order to shrug it off."The supermajority vote requirement does not apply to two other types of international agreements—sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements. While these agreements are regarded as “treaties” internationally, they are not given the same status as “treaties” within the United States because they have not been made “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Sole-executive agreements are international agreements made by the President alone, while Congressional-executive agreements are executive international agreements that backed by legislation passed by Congress, which only requires a simple majority of both houses, not a supermajority of the Senate."As a matter of law it is unclear the President has that authority, but as a practical matter when Carter withdrew from the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush41 withdrew from the ABM treaty, the Supreme Court declined the cases saying this was a political matter, not a legal matter, so while the authority is not explicit under the Constitution, there is precedent for presidents taking such action.NAFTA is codified in Title 19, Chapter 21, USC. So are you contending the Orange One can strike down the laws of the land unilaterally? Where is that AUTHORITY WRITTEN in the Constitution or any where else? It simply is not! Just considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, it should be clear that any POTUS is powerless in any wise to do that!
~~ Executive Branch ~~
So tell me exactly how any POTUS can strike down all of Title 19, Section 21 USC unilaterally with an Executive Order without violating the Separation of Powers doctrine and not bringing down the wrath of the Courts upon his Orange ass! I'm really interested in how that magic trick can be accomplished!
I see I was in error about the advise and consent for a CSA, and for that, my apologies!
Well I can't and it didn't make sense to me either that he could go even this far until I looked into it.
it's kind of muddy, but not totally out of the question either that he could issue the intent to withdraw without Senate approval.
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess and I doubt it happens anyhow, as he'd more than likely be facing an all out revolt from the right.
but could he issue an EO declaring intent to withdraw, it would seem yes, and, if he does, then the Senate would have to fight it.
In this case I think they would fight it.... and now we're in new and interesting territory.
Actually, as another poster has pointed out already, there is precedent for it already.
I had reviewed both instances noted and the "precedents" didn't actually fit these particular circumstances which should have been researched by that poster before posting that which deserved no response.I agree that if he sent notification of intent to withdraw from NAFTA via Executive Memorandum to the Speaker and Majority Leader AND with both houses cooperating AND Congress dotted the I's and crossed all the T's re: Title 19, Sec 21, then getting out from under NAFTA would be possible with NAFTA being a CSA. BUT it would NOT be lawful to simply issue an Executive Order to shrug it off."The supermajority vote requirement does not apply to two other types of international agreements—sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements. While these agreements are regarded as “treaties” internationally, they are not given the same status as “treaties” within the United States because they have not been made “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Sole-executive agreements are international agreements made by the President alone, while Congressional-executive agreements are executive international agreements that backed by legislation passed by Congress, which only requires a simple majority of both houses, not a supermajority of the Senate."As a matter of law it is unclear the President has that authority, but as a practical matter when Carter withdrew from the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush41 withdrew from the ABM treaty, the Supreme Court declined the cases saying this was a political matter, not a legal matter, so while the authority is not explicit under the Constitution, there is precedent for presidents taking such action.
~~ Executive Branch ~~
So tell me exactly how any POTUS can strike down all of Title 19, Section 21 USC unilaterally with an Executive Order without violating the Separation of Powers doctrine and not bringing down the wrath of the Courts upon his Orange ass! I'm really interested in how that magic trick can be accomplished!
I see I was in error about the advise and consent for a CSA, and for that, my apologies!
Well I can't and it didn't make sense to me either that he could go even this far until I looked into it.
it's kind of muddy, but not totally out of the question either that he could issue the intent to withdraw without Senate approval.
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess and I doubt it happens anyhow, as he'd more than likely be facing an all out revolt from the right.
but could he issue an EO declaring intent to withdraw, it would seem yes, and, if he does, then the Senate would have to fight it.
In this case I think they would fight it.... and now we're in new and interesting territory.
Actually, as another poster has pointed out already, there is precedent for it already.
With the Taiwan MDT, Congress never responded to Carter's action as pointed out in Goldwater v. Carter. The Court adjudicated the judicial aspect of the case ONLY and not Carter's action withdrawing from the MDT. That is considerably at odds with this issue and the odds are very high, indeed, that Congress would take action in this case if only from the extreme pressure they would be getting from their constituents.
As far as Bush 43's ABM treaty withdrawal goes, that is another totally different circumstance and contrived "precedent"! First, consider that the ABM treaty was with the USSR and the USSR didn't exist in 2001. Second, at that time in late 2001, Bush notified Russia that the US was taking that action according to the treaty itself. There was a clause in the treaty requiring six notice BEFORE TERMINATION of the treaty. Bush merely followed the agreement and the law AND there was certainly no 'precedent set. in that case!
As I previously noted, the other poster to whom you referred, was the one contriving through their ignorance of the history of certain matters, which was laced with partisan intent.I don't think anyone is trying to 'contrive' anything. I know I'm not.
My response was targeted on your post above!Actually, as another poster has pointed out already, there is precedent for it already.
The fact remains that two presidents withdrew from formal treaties without first consulting Congress and neither Congress nor the Courts took issue with it. That does set a precedent for Trump to withdraw from NAFTA if he chooses to without first consulting Congress.I had reviewed both instances noted and the "precedents" didn't actually fit these particular circumstances which should have been researched by that poster before posting that which deserved no response.I agree that if he sent notification of intent to withdraw from NAFTA via Executive Memorandum to the Speaker and Majority Leader AND with both houses cooperating AND Congress dotted the I's and crossed all the T's re: Title 19, Sec 21, then getting out from under NAFTA would be possible with NAFTA being a CSA. BUT it would NOT be lawful to simply issue an Executive Order to shrug it off."The supermajority vote requirement does not apply to two other types of international agreements—sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements. While these agreements are regarded as “treaties” internationally, they are not given the same status as “treaties” within the United States because they have not been made “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Sole-executive agreements are international agreements made by the President alone, while Congressional-executive agreements are executive international agreements that backed by legislation passed by Congress, which only requires a simple majority of both houses, not a supermajority of the Senate."As a matter of law it is unclear the President has that authority, but as a practical matter when Carter withdrew from the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush41 withdrew from the ABM treaty, the Supreme Court declined the cases saying this was a political matter, not a legal matter, so while the authority is not explicit under the Constitution, there is precedent for presidents taking such action.
~~ Executive Branch ~~
So tell me exactly how any POTUS can strike down all of Title 19, Section 21 USC unilaterally with an Executive Order without violating the Separation of Powers doctrine and not bringing down the wrath of the Courts upon his Orange ass! I'm really interested in how that magic trick can be accomplished!
I see I was in error about the advise and consent for a CSA, and for that, my apologies!
Well I can't and it didn't make sense to me either that he could go even this far until I looked into it.
it's kind of muddy, but not totally out of the question either that he could issue the intent to withdraw without Senate approval.
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess and I doubt it happens anyhow, as he'd more than likely be facing an all out revolt from the right.
but could he issue an EO declaring intent to withdraw, it would seem yes, and, if he does, then the Senate would have to fight it.
In this case I think they would fight it.... and now we're in new and interesting territory.
Actually, as another poster has pointed out already, there is precedent for it already.
With the Taiwan MDT, Congress never responded to Carter's action as pointed out in Goldwater v. Carter. The Court adjudicated the judicial aspect of the case ONLY and not Carter's action withdrawing from the MDT. That is considerably at odds with this issue and the odds are very high, indeed, that Congress would take action in this case if only from the extreme pressure they would be getting from their constituents.
As far as Bush 43's ABM treaty withdrawal goes, that is another totally different circumstance and contrived "precedent"! First, consider that the ABM treaty was with the USSR and the USSR didn't exist in 2001. Second, at that time in late 2001, Bush notified Russia that the US was taking that action according to the treaty itself. There was a clause in the treaty requiring six notice BEFORE TERMINATION of the treaty. Bush merely followed the agreement and the law AND there was certainly no 'precedent set. in that case!
Another EO that will get struck down by the courts.
What's more important than what Canada, Mexico, Congress or the courts say is the fact that he's getting push-back from CEOs.A Canadian source (of a few) reporting the same story. This would give a six month window for the countries to either come to an agreement or it goes belly up.
White House readies executive order to quit NAFTA: report
President Donald Trump is considering an executive order kicking off U.S. withdrawal from the North American free-trade agreement, Politico and CNN reported Wednesday.
Such an order would not immediately pull the U.S. out of the deal. Instead, it would give Canada and Mexico a six-month notice period of the U.S.’s intent to withdraw, after which it could decide to pull out at any time.
Signing the order could be a negotiating tactic meant to ramp up the pressure on Canada and Mexico and signal to the President’s base that he is serious about taking a tough line on America’s trading partners.
“People don’t realize, Canada’s been very rough on the United States. People always think of Canada as being wonderful – so do I, I love Canada – but they’ve outsmarted our politicians for many years,” Mr. Trump said at the White House Tuesday.
Last week, he warned that he would “get rid of NAFTA for once and for all” if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to “very big changes” in the deal.
The Trump administration is expected to formally notify Congress of its intent to renegotiate NAFTA within the next two weeks. That notification would trigger a 90-day countdown to the start of formal talks.
The process reported Wednesday would be separate from that. Under Article 2205 of NAFTA, any country can withdraw after providing six months’ notice to the other two countries. If the U.S. pulled out, NAFTA would remain in force between Canada and Mexico.
Such a unilateral withdrawal would be difficult for the U.S., which depends on numerous integrated supply chains across its borders.
It would also be procedurally difficult. Although Mr. Trump likely could pull the U.S. out of the deal, he would need Congress to approve rolling back its provisions, such as by putting tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods that are currently exempted.
Politico and CNN, both citing unnamed White House officials, said the order has been drafted but not yet finalized. Politico said it was crafted by Peter Navarro, head of the National Trade Council, and Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon. It could be signed later this week or early next.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
The move comes after a week of salvoes from the Trump administration against Canada. Last week in Wisconsin, Mr. Trump laid into Canada’s system of dairy price-fixing, which is keeping American producers out. And Monday, after the Commerce Department levied tariffs against Canadian softwood lumber, the President accused Canada of “taking advantage” of the United States.
That's overly simplified bullshit in one case and simple outright bullshit in the other. But if you want to believe that crap, you just go right ahead because I'll go no further with such a closed minded partisan miscreant. Edify thyself!The fact remains that two presidents withdrew from formal treaties without first consulting Congress and neither Congress nor the Courts took issue with it. That does set a precedent for Trump to withdraw from NAFTA if he chooses to without first consulting Congress.I had reviewed both instances noted and the "precedents" didn't actually fit these particular circumstances which should have been researched by that poster before posting that which deserved no response.I agree that if he sent notification of intent to withdraw from NAFTA via Executive Memorandum to the Speaker and Majority Leader AND with both houses cooperating AND Congress dotted the I's and crossed all the T's re: Title 19, Sec 21, then getting out from under NAFTA would be possible with NAFTA being a CSA. BUT it would NOT be lawful to simply issue an Executive Order to shrug it off."The supermajority vote requirement does not apply to two other types of international agreements—sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements. While these agreements are regarded as “treaties” internationally, they are not given the same status as “treaties” within the United States because they have not been made “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Sole-executive agreements are international agreements made by the President alone, while Congressional-executive agreements are executive international agreements that backed by legislation passed by Congress, which only requires a simple majority of both houses, not a supermajority of the Senate."
~~ Executive Branch ~~
So tell me exactly how any POTUS can strike down all of Title 19, Section 21 USC unilaterally with an Executive Order without violating the Separation of Powers doctrine and not bringing down the wrath of the Courts upon his Orange ass! I'm really interested in how that magic trick can be accomplished!
I see I was in error about the advise and consent for a CSA, and for that, my apologies!
Well I can't and it didn't make sense to me either that he could go even this far until I looked into it.
it's kind of muddy, but not totally out of the question either that he could issue the intent to withdraw without Senate approval.
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess and I doubt it happens anyhow, as he'd more than likely be facing an all out revolt from the right.
but could he issue an EO declaring intent to withdraw, it would seem yes, and, if he does, then the Senate would have to fight it.
In this case I think they would fight it.... and now we're in new and interesting territory.
Actually, as another poster has pointed out already, there is precedent for it already.
With the Taiwan MDT, Congress never responded to Carter's action as pointed out in Goldwater v. Carter. The Court adjudicated the judicial aspect of the case ONLY and not Carter's action withdrawing from the MDT. That is considerably at odds with this issue and the odds are very high, indeed, that Congress would take action in this case if only from the extreme pressure they would be getting from their constituents.
As far as Bush 43's ABM treaty withdrawal goes, that is another totally different circumstance and contrived "precedent"! First, consider that the ABM treaty was with the USSR and the USSR didn't exist in 2001. Second, at that time in late 2001, Bush notified Russia that the US was taking that action according to the treaty itself. There was a clause in the treaty requiring six notice BEFORE TERMINATION of the treaty. Bush merely followed the agreement and the law AND there was certainly no 'precedent set. in that case!
What's more important than what Canada, Mexico, Congress or the courts say is the fact that he's getting push-back from CEOs.A Canadian source (of a few) reporting the same story. This would give a six month window for the countries to either come to an agreement or it goes belly up.
White House readies executive order to quit NAFTA: report
President Donald Trump is considering an executive order kicking off U.S. withdrawal from the North American free-trade agreement, Politico and CNN reported Wednesday.
Such an order would not immediately pull the U.S. out of the deal. Instead, it would give Canada and Mexico a six-month notice period of the U.S.’s intent to withdraw, after which it could decide to pull out at any time.
Signing the order could be a negotiating tactic meant to ramp up the pressure on Canada and Mexico and signal to the President’s base that he is serious about taking a tough line on America’s trading partners.
“People don’t realize, Canada’s been very rough on the United States. People always think of Canada as being wonderful – so do I, I love Canada – but they’ve outsmarted our politicians for many years,” Mr. Trump said at the White House Tuesday.
Last week, he warned that he would “get rid of NAFTA for once and for all” if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to “very big changes” in the deal.
The Trump administration is expected to formally notify Congress of its intent to renegotiate NAFTA within the next two weeks. That notification would trigger a 90-day countdown to the start of formal talks.
The process reported Wednesday would be separate from that. Under Article 2205 of NAFTA, any country can withdraw after providing six months’ notice to the other two countries. If the U.S. pulled out, NAFTA would remain in force between Canada and Mexico.
Such a unilateral withdrawal would be difficult for the U.S., which depends on numerous integrated supply chains across its borders.
It would also be procedurally difficult. Although Mr. Trump likely could pull the U.S. out of the deal, he would need Congress to approve rolling back its provisions, such as by putting tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods that are currently exempted.
Politico and CNN, both citing unnamed White House officials, said the order has been drafted but not yet finalized. Politico said it was crafted by Peter Navarro, head of the National Trade Council, and Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon. It could be signed later this week or early next.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
The move comes after a week of salvoes from the Trump administration against Canada. Last week in Wisconsin, Mr. Trump laid into Canada’s system of dairy price-fixing, which is keeping American producers out. And Monday, after the Commerce Department levied tariffs against Canadian softwood lumber, the President accused Canada of “taking advantage” of the United States.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansasci...nsas-city-southern-ceo-ottensmeyer-nafta.html
Ford CEO Fields Says Nafta Is ‘Very Important’
FedEx CEO: Tearing up NAFTA would be 'catastrophic'
One vote? You make me laugh. This is about the economy and not scuttling it for political profit.What's more important than what Canada, Mexico, Congress or the courts say is the fact that he's getting push-back from CEOs.A Canadian source (of a few) reporting the same story. This would give a six month window for the countries to either come to an agreement or it goes belly up.
White House readies executive order to quit NAFTA: report
President Donald Trump is considering an executive order kicking off U.S. withdrawal from the North American free-trade agreement, Politico and CNN reported Wednesday.
Such an order would not immediately pull the U.S. out of the deal. Instead, it would give Canada and Mexico a six-month notice period of the U.S.’s intent to withdraw, after which it could decide to pull out at any time.
Signing the order could be a negotiating tactic meant to ramp up the pressure on Canada and Mexico and signal to the President’s base that he is serious about taking a tough line on America’s trading partners.
“People don’t realize, Canada’s been very rough on the United States. People always think of Canada as being wonderful – so do I, I love Canada – but they’ve outsmarted our politicians for many years,” Mr. Trump said at the White House Tuesday.
Last week, he warned that he would “get rid of NAFTA for once and for all” if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to “very big changes” in the deal.
The Trump administration is expected to formally notify Congress of its intent to renegotiate NAFTA within the next two weeks. That notification would trigger a 90-day countdown to the start of formal talks.
The process reported Wednesday would be separate from that. Under Article 2205 of NAFTA, any country can withdraw after providing six months’ notice to the other two countries. If the U.S. pulled out, NAFTA would remain in force between Canada and Mexico.
Such a unilateral withdrawal would be difficult for the U.S., which depends on numerous integrated supply chains across its borders.
It would also be procedurally difficult. Although Mr. Trump likely could pull the U.S. out of the deal, he would need Congress to approve rolling back its provisions, such as by putting tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods that are currently exempted.
Politico and CNN, both citing unnamed White House officials, said the order has been drafted but not yet finalized. Politico said it was crafted by Peter Navarro, head of the National Trade Council, and Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon. It could be signed later this week or early next.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.
The move comes after a week of salvoes from the Trump administration against Canada. Last week in Wisconsin, Mr. Trump laid into Canada’s system of dairy price-fixing, which is keeping American producers out. And Monday, after the Commerce Department levied tariffs against Canadian softwood lumber, the President accused Canada of “taking advantage” of the United States.
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansasci...nsas-city-southern-ceo-ottensmeyer-nafta.html
Ford CEO Fields Says Nafta Is ‘Very Important’
FedEx CEO: Tearing up NAFTA would be 'catastrophic'
CEO's have one vote, how many votes do millions who have been robbed of careers and a living due to interference by foreign governments (in the case of Canada)? He keeps his promises or his chances of re-election and even mid term harm is possible. Trump isn't a fool, he knows that this is the case politically, but he also has a bigger fight morally: to make America Great again. Not "Make Canada and Mexico great while they undermine our businesses again".
Take it from me, I've seen these abuses of American companies first hand.
So what you are saying is that you don't like the fact that there are precedents for the president to withdraw from formal treaties without first consulting Congress.That's overly simplified bullshit in one case and simple outright bullshit in the other. But if you want to believe that crap, you just go right ahead because I'll go no further with such a closed minded partisan miscreant. Edify thyself!The fact remains that two presidents withdrew from formal treaties without first consulting Congress and neither Congress nor the Courts took issue with it. That does set a precedent for Trump to withdraw from NAFTA if he chooses to without first consulting Congress.I had reviewed both instances noted and the "precedents" didn't actually fit these particular circumstances which should have been researched by that poster before posting that which deserved no response.I agree that if he sent notification of intent to withdraw from NAFTA via Executive Memorandum to the Speaker and Majority Leader AND with both houses cooperating AND Congress dotted the I's and crossed all the T's re: Title 19, Sec 21, then getting out from under NAFTA would be possible with NAFTA being a CSA. BUT it would NOT be lawful to simply issue an Executive Order to shrug it off.Well I can't and it didn't make sense to me either that he could go even this far until I looked into it.
it's kind of muddy, but not totally out of the question either that he could issue the intent to withdraw without Senate approval.
Where it goes from there is anyone's guess and I doubt it happens anyhow, as he'd more than likely be facing an all out revolt from the right.
but could he issue an EO declaring intent to withdraw, it would seem yes, and, if he does, then the Senate would have to fight it.
In this case I think they would fight it.... and now we're in new and interesting territory.
Actually, as another poster has pointed out already, there is precedent for it already.
With the Taiwan MDT, Congress never responded to Carter's action as pointed out in Goldwater v. Carter. The Court adjudicated the judicial aspect of the case ONLY and not Carter's action withdrawing from the MDT. That is considerably at odds with this issue and the odds are very high, indeed, that Congress would take action in this case if only from the extreme pressure they would be getting from their constituents.
As far as Bush 43's ABM treaty withdrawal goes, that is another totally different circumstance and contrived "precedent"! First, consider that the ABM treaty was with the USSR and the USSR didn't exist in 2001. Second, at that time in late 2001, Bush notified Russia that the US was taking that action according to the treaty itself. There was a clause in the treaty requiring six notice BEFORE TERMINATION of the treaty. Bush merely followed the agreement and the law AND there was certainly no 'precedent set. in that case!
This is making HUGE news here in Canada. Hey. I did my part to contact those in the U.S Commerce, USTR, treasury, DOJ regarding Canadian abuses against NAFTA. This AFTER contacting Canadian authorities and even cc'ing them on some of my communication to the Americans...arrogant Canadians never understand consequences until it's too late. They are more than happy to bully, not very pleased when they are bullied.
My American brothers and sisters, save some of us "good" Canadians. We are worth saving and we actually believe in principles of liberty and free markets!
http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/trump-considers-executive-order-pulling-us-from-nafta/
President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.
A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.
President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.
A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.
There will be another vote to repeal and replace Obamacare tomorrow or next week.This is making HUGE news here in Canada. Hey. I did my part to contact those in the U.S Commerce, USTR, treasury, DOJ regarding Canadian abuses against NAFTA. This AFTER contacting Canadian authorities and even cc'ing them on some of my communication to the Americans...arrogant Canadians never understand consequences until it's too late. They are more than happy to bully, not very pleased when they are bullied.
My American brothers and sisters, save some of us "good" Canadians. We are worth saving and we actually believe in principles of liberty and free markets!
http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/trump-considers-executive-order-pulling-us-from-nafta/
President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.
A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.
President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.
A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.
I haven't read the thread so I may be late to the game, but the White house announced that Trump won't be puling out of NAFTA, The rumored executive order has been scraped. Although they may later try to renegotiate NAFTA, but just like Obamacare, we're going to have it for the time being.
So what you are saying is that you don't like the fact that there are precedents for the president to withdraw from formal treaties without first consulting Congress.
There will be another vote to repeal and replace Obamacare tomorrow or next week.
It is not at all dependent on the language of the treaty. This is about whether the Congress or the Courts will try to stop the President from withdrawing from a formal treaty without first consulting Congress. We have two precedents in which past presidents have done just that without Congress or the Courts taking any action.So what you are saying is that you don't like the fact that there are precedents for the president to withdraw from formal treaties without first consulting Congress.
That of course depends on the language of the treaty. Some have language allowing for bi-lateral withdrawl, uni-lateral withdrawl, and some may have no clause for the parties to withdraw from the treaty. And of course the withdrawl clauses probably specify how that withdrawl is to be made, whether it can be done simply by the president, who after all is in charge of making treaties, to involving congress is there was an underlying requirement for legislation not just to ratify, but to implement the treaty.
So withdrawing by eo is highly dependant on the treaty.
I'll stay on topic just like you, asshole, following your example.So what you are saying is that you don't like the fact that there are precedents for the president to withdraw from formal treaties without first consulting Congress.That's overly simplified bullshit in one case and simple outright bullshit in the other. But if you want to believe that crap, you just go right ahead because I'll go no further with such a closed minded partisan miscreant. Edify thyself!The fact remains that two presidents withdrew from formal treaties without first consulting Congress and neither Congress nor the Courts took issue with it. That does set a precedent for Trump to withdraw from NAFTA if he chooses to without first consulting Congress.I had reviewed both instances noted and the "precedents" didn't actually fit these particular circumstances which should have been researched by that poster before posting that which deserved no response.I agree that if he sent notification of intent to withdraw from NAFTA via Executive Memorandum to the Speaker and Majority Leader AND with both houses cooperating AND Congress dotted the I's and crossed all the T's re: Title 19, Sec 21, then getting out from under NAFTA would be possible with NAFTA being a CSA. BUT it would NOT be lawful to simply issue an Executive Order to shrug it off.
Actually, as another poster has pointed out already, there is precedent for it already.
With the Taiwan MDT, Congress never responded to Carter's action as pointed out in Goldwater v. Carter. The Court adjudicated the judicial aspect of the case ONLY and not Carter's action withdrawing from the MDT. That is considerably at odds with this issue and the odds are very high, indeed, that Congress would take action in this case if only from the extreme pressure they would be getting from their constituents.
As far as Bush 43's ABM treaty withdrawal goes, that is another totally different circumstance and contrived "precedent"! First, consider that the ABM treaty was with the USSR and the USSR didn't exist in 2001. Second, at that time in late 2001, Bush notified Russia that the US was taking that action according to the treaty itself. There was a clause in the treaty requiring six notice BEFORE TERMINATION of the treaty. Bush merely followed the agreement and the law AND there was certainly no 'precedent set. in that case!
