The problem with the Bush administration is that not enough of its officials have read the U.S. Constitution. Take, for example, Section 2 of Article 2. When dealing with foreign nations, it says that the President "shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
So, why is President Bush and his administration seeking to establish a North American Union that would, in effect, abolish the borders between Canada, Mexico, and the United States of America?
Moreover, it would involve our government in so many common regulatory mandates with these two nations as to render the sovereignty of the United States a memory of what national self-governance is supposed to be.
The name of this effort is called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) and, guess what, it has not been submitted to the Senate for its oversight or concurrence because, by some magic of governmental definition, it is not a treaty. Instead, its administration is buried in the bowels of the Commerce Department...
NAU · Mon, 08/21/2006 - 04:13 · · Importance: 1
Independent, in-depth coverage of immigration, politics, and media bias since 2002. Also: multiculturalism, Los Angeles, California, privacy, and occasionally celebrities and wacky humor...
If you can't find what you're looking for, see the About page or use the navigation features to the right.
Atom feed · RSS 2.0 feed · RSS 0.91 feed · WML
Immigration 2008a · Immigration 2007b · Immigration 2007a · Immigration · Immigration (6/05 to 12/05) · Immigration (1/05 to 6/05) · Immigration (8/04 to 12/04) · Immigration (before 8/04) · Immigration & Terrorism · Immigration & Driver's Licenses · Immigration & Consuls · Immigration & Media Bias · Immigration & Europe · North American Union
Blogging Across America
MultiCulti Madness ·
General Politics ·
Privacy ·
Miscellaneous ·
The "Peace" Movement
Los Angeles ·
California ·
Outdoors and sports ·
Celebrities ·
Wackiness ·
Inside Blogging
Iraq ·
Beltway Sniper ·
Terrorism & Extremism ·
The Saudis ·
Warblogging ·
War On Drugs
Comments
1. Legal obligations? Like the one about the Feds defending the states from invasion? We are going to debate about signatories now...smells like fish. Red Herring to be exact.
2. NAFTAA is not a treaty ratified by Congress? That's news to me.
3. Moreover, erasing borders usually permits junky mexican filth-spewing peterbilts to spew their crap upon the highways that I PAY FOR.
4. "Cooperation" with the enemy sounds so...soviet era propaganda, or catholic church-speak. Mexico is our "friend y amigo," right? No such thing as mexican nationalism in these United States.
Ah, but you admit the goals exist! Are you saying the government is not expending any of my tax dollars towards the pursuit of a publicly stated goal?
Haha, this is getting spooky.
Posted by: petty bourgeois at Aug 23, 2006 10:46 PM
Petty - the SPP contains no legal obligations and, in fact, didn't even contain a signed document. How, exactly, does it represent any effort to erase borders?
There is no treaty, there are no regulations, it contains nothing of legal substance. It is merely an agreement to try and cooperate. The only way that any of the goals set by SPP can be met is through the legislative process.
Posted by: Chris at Aug 22, 2006 11:25 PM
Hear that lonewacko? the perversion of treaties to erase borders through undemocratic regulation is merely a "handshake."
Posted by: petty bourgeois at Aug 22, 2006 9:51 PM
Can you say reactionary?
The SPP is merely a framework that the respective countries are trying to implement via actual legislation.
The SPP doesn't require the countries to actually do anything. Its the international relations equivalent of a hardshake.
Posted by: Chris at Aug 22, 2006 9:46 AM
This usurpation of the power of the Senate, when their supermajority support is mandatory, is itself a high crime.
The way it tracks so closely the demands of the dirty and hostile Mexican government raises the question of whether Bush and his officials have committed other high crimes, such as not registering as foreign agents.
JCS chairman Pace would seem to be in quite criminal violation of the foreign agents' registration law, for his representations of Mexican interests as at the public hearing, where he indulged in very dishonorable appeals to emotion, in such a cause.
Posted by: John S Bolton at Aug 22, 2006 3:05 AM
The President has once again taken it upon himself to usurp powers that the Constitution states he must share with Congress. This attitude is little different in spirit from the warrantless wiretap program so recently in the news. In that case, rather than seek to modify FISA, the President claimed wide sweeping powers in his interpretation of his power under the Constitution's war power provisions. This President abhors congressional oversight and instead defers to the judgment of his appointees who have been proven wrong time and again in the courts.
Posted by: Captain A at Aug 21, 2006 8:41 AM
you ask the question why? the fact is its always been the plan for over 50 years to abolish the borders and it will happen just like bush and the business ( read drug cartels ) cartels want. the security is not what you think the security idea is but will become the ideals of keeping you in line and will have nothing to do with terrorists, the prosperity will happen but for only 3 percent of the ruling class inside all so called nation states, see boys this war on terror and names it! is not about bin laden or 9-11 or mexicans or name it! its about money. power and the death of our liberties, what you see happening now is merely a cover-up for what is really happening.
Posted by: Fred Dawes at Aug 21, 2006 7:24 AM