I want to preface what I am about to say with a statement--I am not know or nor have I ever been an attorney. The USWA's NAFTA lawsuit while highly educational in value and rooted is strong constitutional language, just didn't have the punch that a class action lawsuit might or could have on the powers to be. Here I am talking about the Steelworkers a very diverse group of Americans who have been injured by the actions of their own government taken against a very broad class of people the American industrial worker. I also see disparity of treatment arguements that could be worked into this format!
Roy Bean
Max Sawicky wrote:
> >Doug, while you have a point here -- Certainly JfJ was a landmark
> success -- the real threat of NAFTA et al is not lowering of tariffs (i.e.,
> conventional free trade) but the supranational bodies that can take actions
> overriding national law. I suspect that these powers represent the real
> threat of trade
> agreements. >
>
> This is Buchananoid, or maybe Naderite. Or maybe both. You can't have
> binding international labor standards, or any other kind, without some kind
> of authority which supercedes national government. A standard without an
> enforcement mechanism is merely voluntary.
>
> "Sovereignty" is a straw man. If a nation enters into an agreement to
> accede to supra-national authority in certain areas, it has not lost its
> sovereignty. It can always opt out, albeit at the possible cost of
> suffering consequences, though this is true with or without any such
> agreements.
>
> mbs