Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump CAN'T withdraw from NAFTA without a 'yes' from Congress
Linking here to a tweet from Joel Trachtman, a professor of international law and expert on trade law, who reposted a link to his August 2017 column at The Hill after Trump said again he'll terminate NAFTA.
The delusional narcissist-in-chief can't do that.
Link to tweet
Re-upping this. Trump can't withdraw from NAFTA without a 'yes' from Congress
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/international-affairs/346744-trump-cant-withdraw-from-nafta-without-a-yes-from#.XAPuI5xlcs0.twitter
The renegotiation of the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement begins this week. President Trump has threatened that if he does not achieve his goals, he will terminate U.S. participation in NAFTA. But he does not understand, or admit, that he cannot do it on his own. Many in Congress fear that termination would cause economic upheaval, loss of jobs, and losses to firms, not to mention higher prices for U.S. consumers.
NAFTA is a reciprocal agreement by which Mexico and Canada reduce barriers to our exports in exchange for the U.S. reducing barriers to their exports. This means that U.S. industries that export goods and services to Mexico or Canada and the workers in those industries would be hurt by any termination of NAFTA.
Many members of Congress work under the fundamental misunderstanding that the president has the power, on his own, to terminate NAFTA. They are unaware that under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, while the president is the negotiator and signer of trade agreements, he is not the decider. Power to approve, and to terminate U.S. participation in, trade agreements is assigned to Congress.
While the president, under the Constitution, is the main spokesperson and negotiator for the U.S., the Constitution says, and the Supreme Court has affirmed, that this does not mean that the president dictates our foreign policy. The president has power in foreign relations that varies under the Constitution according to the context. Pursuant to the Commerce Clause, the president is at his weakest in the field of trade.
The president and Congress have been misled by the conventional wisdom among some constitutional scholars, which holds that the president has authority to terminate U.S. treaties in all fields, despite lacking the power to make treaties by himself. This conventional wisdom is based on identification in practice of instances in recent history in which the president has terminated some treaties without congressional approval.
Importantly, the Founders generally seem to have believed that the president lacked independent authority to terminate treaties. Where the Constitution does not expressly determine the allocation of power, sometimes practice can be a basis for interpreting the Constitution. So the conventional wisdom interprets the Constitution to allow unilateral termination of treaties by presidents.
This conventional wisdom treats all international agreements, regardless of subject matter, the same. And yet, the Supreme Court has said, in the 1994 case of Barclays v. California, that the Constitution expressly grants Congress, not the president, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. If the president, acting alone, were to terminate U.S. participation in NAFTA, he would be imposing regulation on commerce, without congressional participation.
-snip-
NAFTA is a reciprocal agreement by which Mexico and Canada reduce barriers to our exports in exchange for the U.S. reducing barriers to their exports. This means that U.S. industries that export goods and services to Mexico or Canada and the workers in those industries would be hurt by any termination of NAFTA.
Many members of Congress work under the fundamental misunderstanding that the president has the power, on his own, to terminate NAFTA. They are unaware that under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, while the president is the negotiator and signer of trade agreements, he is not the decider. Power to approve, and to terminate U.S. participation in, trade agreements is assigned to Congress.
While the president, under the Constitution, is the main spokesperson and negotiator for the U.S., the Constitution says, and the Supreme Court has affirmed, that this does not mean that the president dictates our foreign policy. The president has power in foreign relations that varies under the Constitution according to the context. Pursuant to the Commerce Clause, the president is at his weakest in the field of trade.
The president and Congress have been misled by the conventional wisdom among some constitutional scholars, which holds that the president has authority to terminate U.S. treaties in all fields, despite lacking the power to make treaties by himself. This conventional wisdom is based on identification in practice of instances in recent history in which the president has terminated some treaties without congressional approval.
Importantly, the Founders generally seem to have believed that the president lacked independent authority to terminate treaties. Where the Constitution does not expressly determine the allocation of power, sometimes practice can be a basis for interpreting the Constitution. So the conventional wisdom interprets the Constitution to allow unilateral termination of treaties by presidents.
This conventional wisdom treats all international agreements, regardless of subject matter, the same. And yet, the Supreme Court has said, in the 1994 case of Barclays v. California, that the Constitution expressly grants Congress, not the president, the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. If the president, acting alone, were to terminate U.S. participation in NAFTA, he would be imposing regulation on commerce, without congressional participation.
-snip-
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 803 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump CAN'T withdraw from NAFTA without a 'yes' from Congress (Original Post)
highplainsdem
Dec 2018
OP
itsrobert
(14,157 posts)1. So he will run on this and the wall.
His base will eat it up.
dalton99a
(81,534 posts)2. He'll blame Democrats for not letting him kill NAFTA