Obama: Global action required

What most people are not discerning is, is that Pres. Obama is somehow aiding us in facing this "shadow" or darkness of greed in our society. He is not trying to Hide it or Cover it up! Ironically, he is being blamed for not trying to Fix it in a hurry, so it will not be Exposed..... But to truly fix it, we must face it, identify it and generate enough public consensus so that it can be changed. That is how change is made. That is why I see Pres. Obama as really a true change agent. True and lasting change can only come from the people, demanding change. That is why Obama can laugh, he knows that the fat cats days are numbered!

Now GOP's new buzz word is "unsustainable", however, what was really "unsustainable" as the recent events so adequately portray is that George Bush's Iraq War, tax cuts to the wealthy, jobs going over seas, tax breaks to companies that shipped jobs over seas, deregulation of banks and insurance companies, and more (which I will leave to the experts to flush out), is the really true Unsustainable and break down and collapse of our economic system, fabric of society (bridges, roads, jobs, education), you name it, he failed in all aspects of this society. There are "tent" cities popping up all over United States because families can no longer sustain to live in a house because they no longer have a job!

This new buzz word "unsustainable" is a hoax, disingenous and hypocritical. Remember, they want Pres. Obama to Fail!

And lastly, let's be Clear, George W. Bush's first year in office was spent more at the Ranch then in Washington. May be if he had spent more time in D.C. working, they would have been more alert about the signs leading to 9/11.

The above remind me of a song line from the classic musical "Guys and Dolls": "He promised me this, He promised me that, He promised me everything under the Sun...."

For a view from the Left on how Obama regards Obama's pledges, here's Campbell Brown on CNN:

"(CNN) -- Whether by omission or commission, both the White House and Congress get a dose of blame for not living up to the new era of transparency promised by President Obama.

The president's old campaign Web site still has this commitment there for all to see:

"As president, Obama will not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days."

Well, the president broke that promise barely a week after taking office when he signed the Lilly Ledbetter Bill dealing with equal pay for men and women.

A good bill, and certainly one that could have survived a five-day comment period. So, maybe the White House folks just forgot?

But then there is Congress and the Stimulus Bill. How fast could you get through it?

According to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation, lawmakers had just 13 hours to read 1,100 pages of material that would cost the American taxpayer $787 billion.

That's less than a minute and a half per page, with no time for bathroom breaks. No wonder so many of our lawmakers didn't seem to notice that last-minute exemption clearing the way for bailed-out companies like AIG to pay out big bonuses.

So, the House tried to clean up the mess last week by rushing through another bill -- a tax on AIG bonuses. That bill was just 11 hours old before it went on the floor to be argued and then quickly approved.

And the list goes on well before the president took office.

The bank bailout got all of 29 hours, the rescue of Fannie and Freddie was only available for 19 hours. This is how bills could literally become, to borrow a phrase, too big to fail -- and too fast to stop.
advertisement

The Sunlight Foundation is calling on Congress to allow the American people three days, 72 hours, to read a nonemergency bill online before debate begins. We strongly agree.

And yes lawmakers, you can have three days to read it over, too, before taking a stand. As for President Obama's promise of a five-day public review once a bill leaves Capitol Hill headed for his desk, it would be nice if he kept his word on this going forward."

"My message is clear: We are ready to lead".

And wherever you go, your sock puppet drone, bill r. will follow.

Paulo

Is the message here act globally and just think locally?

What can you say about an article that starts out with a lie such as this: "The author, as the Op-Ed notes in the credit line, is the president of the United States." The claim that Obama actually wrote this essay is repeated in the ext paragraph.

Does anyone with an IQ in double digits believe that President Obama actually took a couple hours out of his busy schedule to write this essay?

We all know that Obama's speechwriters wrote this essay. Just as with the stimulus bill, he might or might not have read it... At best he put his name on something already written.

Which means this essay is just another White House press release, spread around by a compliant media.

I wonder if this is part of BO's Global Action required.
.
http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1100966.html

To anyone who believes the President is putting us on the right path, I suggest you read the book, "The Road to Serfdom" by F.A. Hayek. It was written in 1943, but its discussion of issues that have surfaced in the recent economic crisis make it seem as though it could have been written yesterday. I am sure it’s not on the President’s list of books to read.
.
Not only is the President not leading us in the right direction, he is leading us into greater trouble with calls for uniform global standards for controlling businesses and markets. His suggestion that this is intended to avoid “an oppressive government-run economy” is a lie. As is true of moving bodies under Newton’s laws of motion, a government growing in size and strength tends to continue to do so unless acted upon by an outside force. What Obama proposes to achieve can only be achieved by government intervention and force. In the case of a global market, uniformity can only be achieved by a single authority designed to enforce the standards everywhere. When tasked to regulate a global market, a quasi-governmental body must necessarily increase in strength and influence to meet each of the exigencies created by that market. Where, then, are the restraints? Who sets the standards? Are our standards of doing business then to become subservient to others’ views of what is proper? I have a lot of trouble squaring his suggestions and their ramifications with the values of free markets and our own constitutional government.
.
I believe our government has already crossed constitutionally permissible boundaries by delegating control over our commercial affairs to foreign organizations like the WTO and NAFTA. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of the constitutional duties of one branch of government to another branch, or to an outside source. With regard to Congress, this means that Congress cannot delegate its power to legislate. (This is known as the non-delegation doctrine.) The Constitution assigns the duty to regulate interstate and international commerce with the United States to the legislative powers of Congress. (U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8.) Thus, neither the President nor Congress had the power by treaty to delegate the duty to regulate commerce to the WTO or NAFTA - but they did. In the case of delegation to a foreign body, it is not only a violation of the principle of separation of powers and non-delegation; it is an abdication of our national sovereignty. All of this, mind you, has been undertaken in the name of “globalization.”
.
And isn’t Obama suggesting more of the same? How, other than by some overarching world organization will anyone achieve “uniformity” in matters of business and finance? Most certainly that will not be achieved merely by mutual agreement among nations to enact uniform laws. Nations can always opt out of such an agreement by amending their laws to be inconsistent with the agreement. We do it all the time in the U.S. Every country would naturally and jealously favor its own businesses and financial concerns, thereby making truly uniform laws an illusory goal. No, I think Obama has in mind something bigger and more sinister when he speaks of “coordinated international action” and “comprehensive reforms of our regulatory and supervisory framework” in the same breath. Don’t be surprised to see some super WTO, or an equivalent organization, to set standards for the rest of the world. And, with it, be prepared to kiss goodbye more and more of our own national sovereignty and freedom.

John W, both the WTO and NAFTA are based on international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. The Constiitution clearly states that "This 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, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Treaties are the law of the land at the time of ratification, treated exactly the same as any law passed by Congress. In this the WTO and NAFTA are no different than any other treaty. As you point out the regulation of commerce is the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. The Federal Govvernment, both executive and legislative branches have agreed to the treaty provisions of the WTO and NAFTA in line with all Constitutional requirements. This is not a delegation of Constitutional authority, any more than the Geneva Conventions being an unconstitutional limit on Federal control of the US military (Perhaps you are one of the Bush Administration Lawyers who felt that as well?)

By your theory, no international treaty would be Constitutional, since it would, in some way, affect an area that would otherwise be under Congressional or Federal control. That would be international anarchy.

Trade treaties have been made by the US government all the way back to the Jay Treaty in 1796. This is hardly some great "New World Order" conspiracy coming to enslave us all. As long as we are going to allow international trade and commerce, agreements with other nations about that trade and commerce will be required, as it always has. As that trade and commerce becomes more complicated, so shall the agreements. Scary? Perhaps. But what's the other option? Cut off all international business? Tell American banks they cannot invest abroad, and tell foreign investors that their money is not welcome here? Isolate ourselves from the economy of the rest of the world? Perhaps that is your vision. Ithink it sounds like the plan to become North Korea on a vastly larger scale.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kendle | March 24, 2009 5:25 PM
.
I understand your points, but I believe you have made several fundamental errors in analysis.
.
First, the treaty power of the Executive in combination with the Senate is not unlimited. The President and Senate cannot accomplish by treaty that which is forbidden to the President and the entire Congress in the passage of domestic legislation. For instance, the President and Congress cannot bargain away our domestic Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Nor could they bargain away by treaty our basic form of government. That’s because the Constitution contains both explicit and implicit negative restraints applicable to every branch of the federal government. The fact that Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution affirmatively states that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . .” implies a negative that such power shall vest nowhere else. Hence, the President with the consent of the Senate cannot bargain away and delegate Congress’ legislative power to another branch of government, or to a foreign body. That, as I am sure you are aware, is the substance of the non-delegation doctrine. Therefore, one has to admit that, if our treaty establishing our participation in NAFTA and the WTO involved a transfer of Congress’ legislative power, it would be void under the constitution.
.
Second, I must disagree with you that NAFTA and the WTO represent normal, run-of-the-mill trade treaties. They do not. Under both NAFTA and the WTO, the rules of international trade between the member nations are determined, interpreted, and enforced by the organizations themselves. Much of this occurs (and has occurred) after the treaties were ratified. That is very different from the normal type of trade treaty where we provide, for example, some trade concession or favored access to our markets to a nation or several nations in exchange for similar concessions on their part. In the latter instance, alteration of the terms of the agreements requires further treaty action on behalf of the Executive and further Senate ratification. That is not the case when the trade organization gets to make up rules as it goes and then enforce them. (See NRDC v. EPA, 464 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006), observing that recognition of “post-ratification side agreements” of parties to a treaty as “‘law’ would raise serious constitutional questions in light of the nondelegation doctrine, numerous constitutional procedural requirements for making law, and the separation of powers.”)
.
That is why I believe that NAFTA and WTO represent delegation of Congress’ power to regulate commerce under Article I, Section 8. The treaties give over the entire regulation process to the trade bodies. If you don’t think so, just remember how, not too long ago, the WTO determined that the U.S. had “unlawfully” provided a “subsidy” to a steel producer by giving it a tax break. Nobody here ever believed that giving a “tax break” was a subsidy. In which case, the decision was clearly an unforeseen enlargement of what we considered to be a subsidy. Furthermore, unlike other terms prescribed to us by other international treaties, we cannot avoid the holdings of the WTO and NAFTA enforcement bodies through the doctrine of “non-self-execution” - as we were able to do in the Medellin case. The WTO enforcement board immediately gives the aggrieved party the power to impose retaliatory sanctions, and specifies how much and how long they can persist. Those are also terms not settled by the treaty itself. That, to me, is just too much power, totally unaccountable to our voting public, to be considered the proper content of a trade agreement.
.
And, no, isolation is not what I suggest as an alternative. The U.S. Executive and Congress - all of whom are accountable to the American People - did a wonderful job regulating our trade agreements with other countries long before we entered arrangements like the WTO or NAFTA. They can do it again without claims of isolationism or protectionism. To suggest that it is either globalism with the WTO, NAFTA and/or CAFT or isolationism and protectionism is a bunch of hogwash - and you know it.

John W. Allowing the losing country to immediately impose retaliatory sanctions in no way impedes our soverienty, nor does it burden the Governments ability to regulate trade. On the contrary, it enforces it. If another nation is determined to have violated the agreement, we have the right to impose measures to balance it. More importantly, nothing prevents us from imposing any measure that we deem fit. Our tax break isn't nullified in your example, the other nation is simply allowed to take their own measures as a result, exactly the same as would happen outside the treaty. We can avoid the findings of the WTO to the exact extent that we could before.

By the way John, I've been extremely civil to you. I didn't call your fringe Constitutional theory "nonsense" as I might have. Please refrain from the unnecessary use of terms like "Hogwash" if you want to continue in this vein in the future.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kendle | March 24, 2009 10:46 PM
.
I apologize for any offense from my use of the term “hogwash.” I do believe however, that it was unreasonable for you to characterize my position as one favoring protectionism and isolation, as that is simply untrue.
.
The rest of your comments don’t really address the substance of my objection, and perhaps I’m a little at fault for it. The “tax break” turned “subsidies” example was a poor one to demonstrate the problem. I didn’t cite this example as a superficial example of some unfairness, inasmuch as fairness and unfairness have nothing to do with whether our participation in the WTO is constitutional. Bad ideas can be constitutional too. If at all, the unconstitutionality of the WTO and/or NAFTA and similar agreements, and a resulting loss of sovereignty, turns solely on whether they constitute an impermissible delegation of constitutional powers to a foreign body. If they do constitute delegation, no amount of “fairness” can save them from the constitutional infirmity of which I spoke.
.
I cited the decision by the WTO in the “subsidies” case as an example of the WTO’s broad interpretive and rule making powers with regard to a series of international treaties. The WTO has the power, by a three-fourths vote of its members, to adopt a particular interpretation of any treaty - even if the interpretation is unforeseen or represents a substantial departure from what we may have understood to be the meaning of the treaty. Furthermore, many of the trade agreements administered by the WTO, of which we are signatories, are worded in broad and vague principles rather than specific terms and requirements. Thus the WTO’s decision-making body effectively has the power, through its decision making process, to create new and unforeseen obligations for the United States that were never contemplated at the time of the agreement’s ratification. I submit that allowing the WTO to interpret or re-interpret trade agreements to create new rules, and then to enforce these new rules, unconstitutionally delegates Congress’ power to regulate international trade. By analogy, you might remember how the U.S. Supreme Court in Bouie v. Columbia declared that a State had effectively created a new law by way of unforeseen judicial enlargement of a statute. The exercise of the same power of enlargement by the WTO effectively renders it a rule making body that governs the U.S.’s trade relations. Thus, our participation in it represents an impermissible delegation of Congress’ power.
.
Furthermore, the rule making powers of the WTO also (arguably) deprive the Executive and Senate of their Article II powers to make treaties to the extent it can alter our obligations after the fact and in an unforeseen manner. As mentioned, granting the WTO the power to alter out treaties post-ratification does raise serious constitutional issues. A new obligation, not contemplated within an existing treaty, normally must be the subject of a new and different treaty produced by the Article II process. (See NRDC v. EPA, 464 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2006).) The fact the WTO has the power to alter our treaties in an unforeseen manner through re-interpretation - and the power to enforce the unforeseen obligations - effectively gives it the power to make new treaties for us. That is entirely inconsistent with the treaty making power set forth in the Constitution.
.
I have discussed the WTO at large, because it is an easier target. NAFTA, however, also suffers from a number of the same problems, albeit for slightly different reasons.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kendle | March 24, 2009 10:46 PM
.
P.S. You might have called my constitutional theory a “fringe” one or even “nonsense.” I might likewise have elected to consider my dog’s tail a leg and proclaim that my dog has five legs. In both cases you and I would be wrong. Simply calling something a name doesn’t make it so.

John, even if the WTO can change the interpretation of the treaty, and in that way give us a new obligation, It's still not a delegation of constitutional authority. If the new interpretation is in conflict with any US law or policy, it would still take the action of Congress and the President to modify or alter said laws and policies to conform. They may chose not to alter said law or policy. Laws are not struck from the books by the action of the WTO, nor are they added. There mauy be resulting consequences to our refusal to go along with the decisions of the WTO, but then there might be consequences with other nations to a trade decision we made if the WTO did not exist. If the current Congress and Administration agree to abide by the decision of the WTO, they must still act, in accordance with Constitutional procedures, to alter the policy or law in question. The Federal Government retains it's full powers to act, or not act, on trade matters in any way they see fit.

Simply said, neither the WTO nor NAFTA can make or abrogate law in the United States, therefore Your Constitutional arguement has no basis at all.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kendle | March 25, 2009 7:52 AM
.
I totally disagree. If we acquiesce in the behavior of a foreign body altering our treaty obligations, and accept the consequences of those alterations, we are thereby agreeing to that process. If we accept both the process and the consequences of that alteration process, without any further action to ratify or disavow such an agreement, have we not given the WTO too much power? We entered the WTO knowing that it had the power to change our obligations without any further ratification procedures on our part. That’s bad enough.
.
You have taken an unduly narrow view of how much power we must give in order for there to be an unlawful delegation of federal power. It is most certainly NOT the case, as you have argued, that the delegation must alter or nullify any domestic legislation. You, yourself, have pointed out that treaties, once ratified, become the law of the land. Article VI of the Constitution says so explicitly. It follows that altering treaty obligations alters the law of the land. Hence, it is enough that we have acquiesced to an outside law-making body that can add obligations without further action. The case I cited indicated that the creation of extra treaty obligations would suffice to render the process unconstitutional. Your dispute on this issue is with the D.C. Circuit, not me.
.
Furthermore, the fact that we might have suffered similar consequences in the course of a normal trade agreement, as you observe, is totally irrelevant. Unconstitutional acts don’t become more constitutional or less illegal by virtue of the fact that constitutional action might have the same or similar results. A warrantless search of a home does not become constitutional just because the police had probable cause and might have gotten a warrant. Going to war in a foreign land without a congressional declaration of war does not become constitutional simply because Congress was willing to declare war prior to the onset of hostilities. Confiscating private property for private use doesn’t become constitutional just because it might have been used for a public purpose. If what “might have” happened serves as a proxy for constitutional behavior, then no part of the Constitution is safe from nullification.
.
After all is said and done, the fact is that the WTO has an obligation altering mechanism. It is the operation of that altering process to which we have agreed that makes our agreement to participate in the WTO an unconstitutional delegation of federal power.

I disagree that it has an obligation altering mechanism. It has a dispute resolution mechanism, which in no way interferes with or assumes the governing power of the Federal government. The WTO has zero Federal power.

I guess we will just disagree. I'm sure you also find the UN, NATO, SEATO, and a host of other multi-national treaty organisations to be further encroachments on US sovereinty leading to the dreaded "New World Order" one world government. I don't, and I think the gap between your view of the world and mine is probably too large to be bridged anytime soon.

* * * * *
Posted by: Kendle | March 25, 2009 6:36 PM
.
A court in a contract action enforces an agreement according to the reasonable expectations of the parties. THAT is a pure dispute resolution process because it doesn’t change the terms of the agreement to suit itself. The fact the WTO makes up the rules and obligations as it goes is what distinguishes its function from that of a pure dispute resolution process. This is just another distinction lost on you.
.
The rest of your response is a red herring and/or hyperbole. Our obligations to the UN, NATO, SEATO and other organizations are fixed and don’t vary by interpretation. Nor do any of these organizations arrogate to themselves the power to alter our obligations. Furthermore, with regard to most of the organizations you mentioned, we have the power to veto any decision with which we are not in accord. The same is not true of the WTO. They can make, and have made, decisions over our dissent.
.
Yes, I think we will disagree as long as you carry around the attitude that I think everything is part of some conspiracy to bring in the “New World Order.” I have no such illusions. Nor do I fear that which I can’t see. It is YOUR problem that you wish to attempt to marginalize my views in your own mind. If anything, the gap between your position and mine is caused by your believe that the Constitution can be made subservient to any countervailing government policy, or by convention and practice. You have also indicated your belief that the meaning of the Constitution can change, or has changed, without an alteration in its wording. Such views may be politically expedient and even popular, but they violate the first principles of understanding the law.