Mexican President Nieto said he may not attend meeting with Trump

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,573
756
113
Like I said, under the US Constitution, specifically the Commerce Clause, only Congress can alter our tariff laws. The President cannot. You know the President has no law making ability. We entered with Congressional approval and we must exit with Congressional approval.

I'm done on this one. You never admit when you are wrong, even when shown in black and white. Only after dumb dave convinced you that you were wrong on the "median" argument did you shut up.

And btw, Mexico and Canada are by far the two biggest consumers of American made products. So, good luck to Trump on ending trade with them.
You were done on this one a long time ago. #tardwrongagain
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,991
113
I think CNN was referring to the specific language of the trade agreement that apparently gives the President this unilateral authority.

"Would he even have the power to scrap it on his own? Turns out presidents do have that power and don't need Congress. NAFTA's Article 2205, which Trump cited in his speech last week in Pittsburgh, is only 34 words and simply says that a party may withdraw from the agreement six months after it provides written not."

Yes, if THAT agreement is worded with that provision, he most certainly can. If it is US Law, he cannot. Apparently it is not codified as US Law.

What is NAFTA?
What is the 'North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA'
A regulation implemented January 1, 1994 in Mexico, Canada and the United States to eliminate most tariffs on trade between these nations. The three countries phased out numerous tariffs, (with a particular focus on those related to agriculture, textiles and automobiles), between the agreement’s implementation and January 1, 2008. NAFTA’s purpose is to encourage economic activity between the United States, Mexico and Canada.


Read more: North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nafta.asp#ixzz4WuFo5Hvu
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Yes, if THAT agreement is worded with that provision, he most certainly can. If it is US Law, he cannot. Apparently it is not codified as US Law.

What is NAFTA?
What is the 'North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA'
A regulation implemented January 1, 1994 in Mexico, Canada and the United States to eliminate most tariffs on trade between these nations. The three countries phased out numerous tariffs, (with a particular focus on those related to agriculture, textiles and automobiles), between the agreement’s implementation and January 1, 2008. NAFTA’s purpose is to encourage economic activity between the United States, Mexico and Canada.


Read more: North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nafta.asp#ixzz4WuFo5Hvu
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

I, at first, thought it was statutory (although one show last week thought it needed only Senate approval). Then I found the articles apparently showing the wording of NAFTA that gives him that authority.
 

EEResistable

All-American
May 29, 2001
89,439
5,690
61
Yes, if THAT agreement is worded with that provision, he most certainly can. If it is US Law, he cannot. Apparently it is not codified as US Law.

What is NAFTA?
What is the 'North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA'
A regulation implemented January 1, 1994 in Mexico, Canada and the United States to eliminate most tariffs on trade between these nations. The three countries phased out numerous tariffs, (with a particular focus on those related to agriculture, textiles and automobiles), between the agreement’s implementation and January 1, 2008. NAFTA’s purpose is to encourage economic activity between the United States, Mexico and Canada.


Read more: North American Free Trade Agreement - NAFTA Definition | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/nafta.asp#ixzz4WuFo5Hvu
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

Bang!
#MAGA
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,991
113
I, at first, thought it was statutory (although one show last week thought it needed only Senate approval). Then I found the articles apparently showing the wording of NAFTA that gives him that authority.

countryroads89 is correct as far as the commerce clause defines US Law and who has jurisdiction, but he is wrong about this treaty and Trump's ability to undo it without Congressional approval.

He blamed someone else for not "reading" and obviously he has not read this all the way through.

Trump ironically has.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
countryroads89 is correct as far as the commerce clause defines US Law and who has jurisdiction, but he is wrong about this treaty and Trump's ability to undo it without Congressional approval.

He blamed someone else for not "reading" and obviously he has not read this all the way through.

Trump ironically has.

But he was incredibly wrong when he said that it required the other countries approval as well as approval of international bodies. It
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,991
113
But he was incredibly wrong when he said that it required the other countries approval as well as approval of international bodies. It

Yes he was, but he won't admit it. He's sticking to his reading of the Constitution's delineation of Congressional authority under the commerce clause and he's not wrong about that, but just as you said PAX he is dead wrong about this treaty which is not statutory US Law and does not come under Congressional oversight related to the commerce clause.

He's a very confused Mountaineer, but don't we all know this?
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,704
1,769
113
I destroyed dave, PATX and dvldog all three
You did no such thing. Do you really think we are that stupid to not realize that you need congressional approval to do what we suggested? Really? Did you forget the GOP controls both houses? In effect, if Trump wants to burn NAFTA to the ground, he'll be able to.

I now see where the big disconnect here is. When we are talking about these things, we are talking about a unified Legislative and Executive action. What you hear is us saying that Trump can just go alone on it. No wonder, because that's what you all are used to with the last guy, what's his name...and how he used to act. Good lord.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
Trump holds basically zero cards. You wingnuts continue to show your ignorance.

Trump is making huge mistakes and unfortunately you people won't understand it until it is too late. It is just like saying repeal the ACA. Things aren't as simple as typical republican and libertarian rhetoric.

It's so YUGE that you'll have to wait until they pass it before you see what's in it.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,991
113
countryroads89 reminds me of Thomas in the Bible. If you remember, he just couldn't believe Christ was actually alive, even though Dude was standing right there after he (Thomas) watched him be crucified and die.

So Jesus says to him "Thomas my Man, come on over here and stick your finger into my wounds." So with Christ right there in the room talking to his 'ol dumb ***, Thomas still had to stick his hands into Christ's pierced palms to actually believe he was really alive!

Countryroads89 is our modern day "doubting Thomas" when it comes to Trump punking the Mexicans. The wall will be built, NAFTA will be torn up... while Mexico will pay for the wall AND they will redo NAFTA.

Countryroads89 just has to see it to finally believe it, just like Thomas.
 

TarHeelEer

Redshirt
Dec 15, 2002
89,286
37
48
I destroyed dave, PATX and dvldog all three.

 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
countryroads89 reminds me of Thomas in the Bible. If you remember, he just couldn't believe Christ was actually alive, even though Dude was standing right there after he (Thomas) watched him be crucified and die.

So Jesus says to him "Thomas my Man, come on over here and stick your finger into my wounds." So with Christ right there in the room talking to his 'ol dumb ***, Thomas still had to stick his hands into Christ's pierced palms to actually believe he was really alive!

Countryroads89 is our modern day "doubting Thomas" when it comes to Trump punking the Mexicans. The wall will be built, NAFTA will be torn up... while Mexico will pay for the wall AND they will redo NAFTA.

Countryroads89 just has to see it to finally believe it, just like Thomas.

The key difference is that when Thomas saw the wounds, he believed. When country is faced with the facts, articles proving the facts, he still doesn't believe.
 

atlkvb

All-Conference
Jul 9, 2004
80,059
1,991
113
The key difference is that when Thomas saw the wounds, he believed. When country is faced with the facts, articles proving the facts, he still doesn't believe.

He thinks Thomas was "tricked". countryroads89 doesn't trust Republicans, and he thinks Trump is Lucifer incarnate.