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

Ruling of the Week 2015.8: Old Jersey and Pitcairn Island

Image
For today's ROTW, I set out looking for a ruling dealing with some far off and preferably warm location. Turns out that, with the exception of coastwise transit issues, there are no Customs and Border Protection rulings involving Pitcairn Island or any of several Pacific Ocean microstates including Tuvalu , Niue , and Kiribati . Pitcairn Island What I did find is an interesting question about the country of origin marking for products of the Bailiwick of Jersey Island, Channel Islands. The ruling is HQ 561938 (Mar. 18, 2002). For those of you who may not know, Jersey is an island off the coast of Normandy, France. It is an independent international actor and not part of the U.K. although the U.K. is responsible for its defense and external relations. Also, the Queen is the Head of State in her capacity as "the Crown in Right of Jersey." It is, according to the U.S. Department of State, a " Crown Dependency " along with the Isle of Man and the Bailiwick o...
Read more

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

Ninestar and UFLPA Exhaustion

Image
Exhaustion is a key doctrine in administrative law. When applicable, it requires that a party unhappy with an agency’s determination complete the administrative appeal process before turning to the courts for judicial review. Requiring exhaustion typically promotes judicial efficiency by ensuring that disputes are resolved at the agency and, if they are not, that there is a complete record of the agency process. Exhaustion also ensures that the judiciary respects the executive agencies and their expertise.  There are, on the other hand, times when the courts will find that exhaustion is not necessary or appropriate. Such is the case in  Ninestar Corporation et al. v. United States  et al., a decision of the U.S. Court of International Trade.  Ninestar is also interesting because it is one of the first cases in the CIT involving the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, known as UFLPA. In my hiatus from active blogging, I missed the rise of UFLPA as a major compliance t...
Read more