See other History Articles
Title: Bill Clinton Signed NAFTA, Right? WRONG
Source:
Democratic Underground
URL Source: [None]
Published: Sep 12, 2007
Author: Some DU'er
Post Date: 2007-09-12 16:03:18 by ghostdogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 2042
Comments: 6
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
So Bush signed an agreement which had no authority until the Clinton congress ratified it. They all eat dung.
Clinton made it a top priority to get Nafta ratified in 1993. So he is to blame.
Bush père signed the NAFTA agreement, as an agreement. To become effective as law, it still needed the approval of Congress. Eventually, after modifications, Clinton submitted it to Congress as an Act of Congress to be passed as such (if he had submitted it as a treaty for Senate ratification, it would have required a two-thirds majority in the Senate. As it was, simple majorities in both Houses of Congress sufficed.) After both Houses of Congress passed it as a bill, Clinton signed it into law. (If he had vetoed it, it would have taken two-thirds majorities in both Houses to override his veto. NAFTA didn't get a two-thirds majority in either House, and the vote in the House of Representatives was rather close, 234-200.) I'm not the only one who believes that the Powers That Be saw to it that Clinton was elected president in '92, precisely because they thought a pro- NAFTA Democrat like Clinton could get it through the then-Democratic Congress, whereas a Republican president like Bush père could not.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994. But, who cares, fuck Bush and Klinton !
"The mighty are only mighty because we are on our knees. Let us rise!" --Camille Desmoulins
I believe an agreement needs a simple majority vote, whereas a treaty (which NAFTA actually is) needs a two-thirds majority vote. SO they suckered us on this also.
More two-party fraud dung of a story. Klinton made NAFTA legal on 12/8/93 by signing into law, which was passed by the House and Senate during his administration. This headline is more BS. Both parties suck and so does the DU. Trying to blame it on Bush is purely disingenuous. Bush was part of it, but both men are bonded at their pelvises and Klinton made actually signed it into law..
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#2. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
I've already said too much.
#3. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
(Edited)
#4. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
(Edited)
#5. To: aristeides (#3)
(Edited)
#6. To: ghostdogtxn (#0)
(Edited)
In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994.
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest