The Tide Is Beginning To Turn In The USA

This is a typical "division of power" play in the US. Is foreign trade a State responsibilty or a Federal responsibility?

Do the State of Oregon (bordering the Pacific Ocean) and the State of Maine (bordering Canada as well as the Atlantic Ocean) have the right (or privilege) to determine whom they want to trade with and under what terms, without interference by the Federal Government?

Or did the State of Maine give up that right when it joined the Union, and did the State of Oregon never have it when it was created by the US Government?

I don't know.

Or is it a new game when the federal government changes the old rules which were agreed to by the states?

---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)

I forwarded the article as a matter of interest and to show that some VIPs are beginning to make noises.

But......

At this time these governors can jump up an down, because one of the most important clauses in the phony free trade agreements is that no levels of government can overrule them and are bound by them. The same applies to Canada under NAFTA and the WTO. If a local government interferes with the profit making schemes of a multinational, they can sue the federal government for huge compensation. E,G. Chapter 11 of NAFTA.

On the other hand, NAFTA has a 6 month escape clause and if there's enough opposition, which is definitely growing all over, the federal governments that signed these treaties must sooner of later give up. This is the point.

Now, there's an interesting scenario developing in Peru, where the present government has signed an FTA with the USA,
but there's a good chance that they will be defeated immediately after signing the treaty and the government that may be elected is deadly against it.

So, what will happen ? Will they abide by the treaty they oppose and hate, or tear it up ? It will be interesting to see.

Ed Deak.

<p>Jacob,</p> <blockquote>[Do American states] have the right (or privilege) to determine whom they want to trade with and under what terms, without interference by the Federal Government?</blockquote> <p>it depends. Among the powers granted to Congress in article I., §8 of our Constitution is <i>To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes</i>. Thus, trade between American states, and trade between American states and other countries (or domestic First Nations), can be (and is) constrained by federal legislation. Trade that doesn’t cross a state border (or a reserve border) is outside of the power of Congress to regulate, other than limiting <i>what</i> can be traded, e.g. heroin, plutonium, homemade Federal Reserve notes, &c.</p> <p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />

Now we are into semantics. What do the words "regulated" or "constrained" mean in this context?

I guess you imply that the individual States have no rights.

Back to my two examples: This is probably not what the State of Maine thought it to be 230 years ago. But that is the rule under which the State of Oregon was created under.

<p>Semantics, indeed! Different Constitutional scholars have different interpretations on words like <i>regulated</i> in our Constitution. The <i>historical literalists</i> believe that only the words in the Constitution itself count, and those words should be understood only in their late 18th century definitions (which in the case of the Second Amendment’s <i>well-regulated militia</i> gives a result quite different from the typical modern interpretation). The <i>modern literalists</i> also take into account only the literal text of the Constitution, but that its words should be understood in their current meanings. The <i>originalists</i> try to derive the Framers’ intent, taking into account the historical literalist position along with contemporary documents such as the <i>Federalist Papers</i>. The <i>instrumentalists</i> try to derive meaning from today’s context, taking into account the modern literalist viewpoint along with legal precedent and current opinion — e.g. the Constitution as a “living document”.</p> <p>I’m not trying to imply that the states have no rights; what I’m trying to say is that (in theory) the people have granted to the federal government certain powers, to the states other powers, and retain the remaining powers themselves. Congress was given the power to <i>regulate</i> (however the courts interpret the term) international trade; it doesn’t mean that they <i>must</i> regulate it, but that they <i>can</i> regulate it — and in fact have created considerable legislation affecting international trade. For example, our trade with Cuba is highly affected (in this case, constrained) by Congressional legislation.</p> <p>Regarding your two examples, Maine became a state in 1820; before that it was part of Massachusetts. Oregon was one of the states that didn’t have a Congressional enabling act authorising it to form a state government; it formed one by itself, while still an organized territory. (Territories, whether organized or unorganized, also come under Congressional jurisdiction; but again, the ability to legislate on a particular matter for a territory doesn’t necessarily mean that that matter must be legislated on.)</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />