Treaty Schmeaty

Right now, I am grading papers for my John Marshall Class on NAFTA and other US Free Trade Agreements.  A theme running through a few is whether NAFTA is constitutional.  The most common argument against constitutionality is that NAFTA is a treaty.  The Constitution requires treaties to be negotiated by the President and ratified by the Senate by a 2/3 vote.  

NAFTA, on the other hand, is the product of the fast track process.  Under fast track, the President (of his proxies) negotiate the deal and bring it to Congress.  Congress then considers the deal in the form of standard legislation and votes on it in both houses.  If it passes by a simple majority, it becomes the law.  New law, no treaty necessary.

Some have argued that this process, and similar congressional-executive agreements, are unconstitutional in that they are an end run around the Treaties Clause.  In reality, they are a reasonable delegation of congressional authority to the President.  Congress, we must remember, has constitutional authority to regulate trade between the U.S. and foreign nations (as well as Native American tribes).  Of course, 535 members of congress can't very well sit down with the President of Morocco (or all of Morocco's legislators) and hash out a trade agreements.  So, to facilitate trade deals, Congress has granted fast-track authority to the President.  So, most scholars (but not all of my student) have found the process to be constitutional.

All of this is context for this editorial from the New York Times in which former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton and former Deputy Attorney General John Yoo bemoan the use of congressional-executive agreements in lieu of Senate ratified treaties.  The examples they raise are much more dire than "simple" FTAs, but I am not sure their analysis is particularly more compelling than my one paragraph above.

Comments

Unknown said…
NAFTA seems to be a well thought out treaty
utah personal injury attorney
Jan 9, 2009, 6:21:00 AM
SUING FOR SLANDER said…
Free trade agreements can help to encourage coordination and cooperation among member states.Although the interdependence created by free trade agreements carries powerful benefits, all nations can suffer if the ties are ever broken.
Jan 31, 2011, 7:09:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more