Bush trying to trump the Supreme court!!!

[undergroundpanther]

I know this article is from a rightwing site,
but dammit..look at what it is saying!!..scary..shit..


North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 19, 2006


The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.

Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.h ****American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court****


http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15623


WTF is this North American Union Bullshit..a coup to TRUMP THE SUPREME COURT!! Is Bush setting up another government to disable this one? Is ithis fucking North American union the secret shadow govt.that has been set up in the coming out to the light of day this way?
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/01/asb.00.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/2002/US/03/01/shadow.government/index.html

[NYCGirl]

1. You duped your own post?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1472032

[undergroundpanther]

2. too many fucking windows open

confused myself.. d'oh. Done it before.. sorry.

[MADem]

3. Isn't Corsi that swiftboat liar? NT

[Divernan]

4. Sounds like it's modeled on the European Union's Court of Justice

and Court of First Instance, as per Articles 220-245 EC.

THE COURT OF JUSTICE
The Court of Justice of the European Communities, located in Luxembourg, is made up of one judge from each EU country, assisted by 8 advocates-general. They are appointed by joint agreement of the governments of the member states. Each is appointed for a term of six years, after which they may be reappointed for one or two further periods of three years. They are expected to show impartiality.

The Court's job is to ensure that EU law is complied with, and that the treaties are correctly interpreted and applied. It can find any EU member state guilty of failing to fulfil its obligations under the treaties. It can check whether EU laws have been properly enacted and it can find the European Parliament, the Council(of the EU) or the European Commission guilty of failing to act as required.

The Court of Justice is also the only institution that can, at the request of the national courts, give a ruling on the interpretation of the treaties and on the validity and interpretation of EU law. So when a question of this sort is brought before a court in one of the member states, that court may - and sometimes MUST - ask the Court of Justice for its ruling.
The Treaties explicitly allow the Court to check whether EU legislation respects the fundamental rights of EU citizens and to give rulings on questions of personal freedom and security.

The Court of First Instance, which was set up in 1989 and consists of one judge from each EU country, is responsible for giving rulings on certain kinds of cases, particularly:
(1) ACTIONS BROUGHT BY FIRMS OR PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AGAINST EU INSTITUTIONS
AND
(2) DISPUTES BETWEEN THE INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.

My comments: (1) Thank you for reading this far! It's dry stuff.
(2) We already have a Supreme Court in this country and don't need another court system.
(3) I can't believe Canada and Mexico would give up their sovereign rights to Bush's corporatist
designs.
(4) There is no provision in our Constitution re appointments to such a Court, so Bush could set it up such that no advise/consent was required from the Senate.
(5) As my all caps items point out, if the US followed the EU model, Bush's corporate buddies could avoid the US Supreme Court and bring actions, for example, against a US govt. agency's regulations (like the FDA) claiming interference with their business activities re NAFTA. Or maybe they would challenge a US requirement re minimum wage (disputes between institutions and their employees)

One can safely assume that there are big $$$$ to be made for corporations, at the expense of US taxpayers and workers, if Bush is backing this idea.

[Suich]

5. Google this:

NAFTA Superhighway

:hi: