Trump considers executive order pulling US from NAFTA

[shockedcanadian]

This is making HUGE news here in Canada. Hey. I did my part to contact those in the U.S Commerce, USTR, treasury, DOJ regarding Canadian abuses against NAFTA. This AFTER contacting Canadian authorities and even cc'ing them on some of my communication to the Americans...arrogant Canadians never understand consequences until it's too late. They are more than happy to bully, not very pleased when they are bullied.

My American brothers and sisters, save some of us "good" Canadians. We are worth saving and we actually believe in principles of liberty and free markets!

http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/trump-considers-executive-order-pulling-us-from-nafta/

President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.

A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.

President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.

A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.

 

[shockedcanadian]

A Canadian source (of a few) reporting the same story. This would give a six month window for the countries to either come to an agreement or it goes belly up.

White House readies executive order to quit NAFTA: report

President Donald Trump is considering an executive order kicking off U.S. withdrawal from the North American free-trade agreement, Politico and CNN reported Wednesday.

Such an order would not immediately pull the U.S. out of the deal. Instead, it would give Canada and Mexico a six-month notice period of the U.S.’s intent to withdraw, after which it could decide to pull out at any time.

Signing the order could be a negotiating tactic meant to ramp up the pressure on Canada and Mexico and signal to the President’s base that he is serious about taking a tough line on America’s trading partners.

“People don’t realize, Canada’s been very rough on the United States. People always think of Canada as being wonderful – so do I, I love Canada – but they’ve outsmarted our politicians for many years,” Mr. Trump said at the White House Tuesday.

Last week, he warned that he would “get rid of NAFTA for once and for all” if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to “very big changes” in the deal.

The Trump administration is expected to formally notify Congress of its intent to renegotiate NAFTA within the next two weeks. That notification would trigger a 90-day countdown to the start of formal talks.

The process reported Wednesday would be separate from that. Under Article 2205 of NAFTA, any country can withdraw after providing six months’ notice to the other two countries. If the U.S. pulled out, NAFTA would remain in force between Canada and Mexico.

Such a unilateral withdrawal would be difficult for the U.S., which depends on numerous integrated supply chains across its borders.

It would also be procedurally difficult. Although Mr. Trump likely could pull the U.S. out of the deal, he would need Congress to approve rolling back its provisions, such as by putting tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods that are currently exempted.

Politico and CNN, both citing unnamed White House officials, said the order has been drafted but not yet finalized. Politico said it was crafted by Peter Navarro, head of the National Trade Council, and Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon. It could be signed later this week or early next.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

The move comes after a week of salvoes from the Trump administration against Canada. Last week in Wisconsin, Mr. Trump laid into Canada’s system of dairy price-fixing, which is keeping American producers out. And Monday, after the Commerce Department levied tariffs against Canadian softwood lumber, the President accused Canada of “taking advantage” of the United States.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Another EO that will get struck down by the courts.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Another EO that will get struck down by the courts.

Well he did the same with TPP so I don't think it is a process that the courts can strike down. I believe Congress would have to block it if the arguments I am hearing are correct from CBC and other sources.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

NAFTA is a congressional-executive agreement (CSA). That CSA was entered into following the advise and consent of Congress; a two step process with the executive action first and then the congressional action following. The Orange One can't simply write another bogus Executive Order cutting out the role of Congress unilaterally withdrawing from NAFTA.

The Executive is NOT empowered by the Constitution to erase or amend existing law. Well, he could, but it would only make him look even dumber than ever and get yet another Executive Order thrown on the top of the other trash and bungled detritus of his very short reign as the Idiot-in-Chief!

 

[Fueri]

Unless the Senate challenges after the fact, yes he likely can.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Another EO that will get struck down by the courts.

NAFTA wasn't passed by Congress or anything to begin with.

It's just a deal that H.W. Bush crafted to weaken the US.

Are you aware his grandfather funded the Nazis?

 

[my2¢]

Seems like an irresponsible move to me but then I would have thought this news would have bigger effect on the stock market. Looks relatively flat today. Based on that, I'll admit not having a clue what the deal is beyond the vague reports I see online.

Edit:
Trump considers order that would start process of withdrawing from NAFTA

Based on this story, I think it is a silly negotiating ploy that Mexico and Canada will easily see through

 

[toomuchtime_]

Another EO that will get struck down by the courts.

Well he did the same with TPP so I don't think it is a process that the courts can strike down. I believe Congress would have to block it if the arguments I am hearing are correct from CBC and other sources.

TPP was never ratified by Congress, so the President could withdraw without consulting Congress, but it is unclear as a matter of law if a formal treaty that has been ratified by Congress, as NAFTA was, can be exited without the consent of Congress. As a practical matter the Supreme Court has refused to hear cases on this issue in the past; for example when Bush41 withdrew from the ABM treaty.

 

[Indeependent]

Buh, Bye NAFTA!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Unless the Senate challenges after the fact, yes he likely can.

NAFTA is codified in Title 19, Chapter 21, USC. So are you contending the Orange One can strike down the laws of the land unilaterally? Where is that AUTHORITY WRITTEN in the Constitution or any where else? It simply is not! Just considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, it should be clear that any POTUS is powerless in any wise to do that!

 

[toomuchtime_]

Unless the Senate challenges after the fact, yes he likely can.

NAFTA is codified in Title 19, Chapter 21, USC. So are you contending the Orange One can strike down the laws of the land unilaterally? Where is that AUTHORITY WRITTEN in the Constitution or any where else? It simply is not! Just considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, it should be clear that any POTUS is powerless in any wise to do that!

As a matter of law it is unclear the President has that authority, but as a practical matter when Carter withdrew from the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush41 withdrew from the ABM treaty, the Supreme Court declined the cases saying this was a political matter, not a legal matter, so while the authority is not explicit under the Constitution, there is precedent for presidents taking such action.

 

[Fueri]

Unless the Senate challenges after the fact, yes he likely can.

NAFTA is codified in Title 19, Chapter 21, USC. So are you contending the Orange One can strike down the laws of the land unilaterally? Where is that AUTHORITY WRITTEN in the Constitution or any where else? It simply is not! Just considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, it should be clear that any POTUS is powerless in any wise to do that!

Well, clearly it IS.

Article 2 of the constitution

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

The last sentence being why I included the Senate in my post.

It would also be good to know that other Presidents have indeed pulled out of similar treaties, such as bush, with anti-ballistic missile treaty. He declared it, the Senate sat mum, and it was nullified. Carter did something similar.

He can declare withdrawal, and if the senate does nothing, that's that.

 

[Avatar4321]

I would think he would need senate approval but NAFTA isn't one of my specialities so I could be wrong

 

[Correll]

Unless the Senate challenges after the fact, yes he likely can.

NAFTA is codified in Title 19, Chapter 21, USC. So are you contending the Orange One can strike down the laws of the land unilaterally? Where is that AUTHORITY WRITTEN in the Constitution or any where else? It simply is not! Just considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, it should be clear that any POTUS is powerless in any wise to do that!

As the judges keep showing, limiting yourself to your constitutional powers is for suckers.

 

[OKTexas]

This is making HUGE news here in Canada. Hey. I did my part to contact those in the U.S Commerce, USTR, treasury, DOJ regarding Canadian abuses against NAFTA. This AFTER contacting Canadian authorities and even cc'ing them on some of my communication to the Americans...arrogant Canadians never understand consequences until it's too late. They are more than happy to bully, not very pleased when they are bullied.

My American brothers and sisters, save some of us "good" Canadians. We are worth saving and we actually believe in principles of liberty and free markets!

http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/trump-considers-executive-order-pulling-us-from-nafta/

President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.

A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.

President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.

A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.

Considering NAFTA is a treaty, what a president can do unilaterally is very limited.

 

[Correll]

This is making HUGE news here in Canada. Hey. I did my part to contact those in the U.S Commerce, USTR, treasury, DOJ regarding Canadian abuses against NAFTA. This AFTER contacting Canadian authorities and even cc'ing them on some of my communication to the Americans...arrogant Canadians never understand consequences until it's too late. They are more than happy to bully, not very pleased when they are bullied.

My American brothers and sisters, save some of us "good" Canadians. We are worth saving and we actually believe in principles of liberty and free markets!

http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/trump-considers-executive-order-pulling-us-from-nafta/

President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.

A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.

President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.

A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.

Considering NAFTA is a treaty, what a president can do unilaterally is very limited.

As the judges keep showing, limiting yourself to your constitutional powers is for suckers.

 

[OKTexas]

This is making HUGE news here in Canada. Hey. I did my part to contact those in the U.S Commerce, USTR, treasury, DOJ regarding Canadian abuses against NAFTA. This AFTER contacting Canadian authorities and even cc'ing them on some of my communication to the Americans...arrogant Canadians never understand consequences until it's too late. They are more than happy to bully, not very pleased when they are bullied.

My American brothers and sisters, save some of us "good" Canadians. We are worth saving and we actually believe in principles of liberty and free markets!

http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/trump-considers-executive-order-pulling-us-from-nafta/

President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.

A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.

President Trump may sign an executive order that would take the US out of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a new report said Wednesday.

A draft order has been submitted for review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, Politico reported, citing two White House officials.

Considering NAFTA is a treaty, what a president can do unilaterally is very limited.

As the judges keep showing, limiting yourself to your constitutional powers is for suckers.

So two wrongs make a right? NOPE!!!!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Unless the Senate challenges after the fact, yes he likely can.

NAFTA is codified in Title 19, Chapter 21, USC. So are you contending the Orange One can strike down the laws of the land unilaterally? Where is that AUTHORITY WRITTEN in the Constitution or any where else? It simply is not! Just considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, it should be clear that any POTUS is powerless in any wise to do that!

As a matter of law it is unclear the President has that authority, but as a practical matter when Carter withdrew from the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush41 withdrew from the ABM treaty, the Supreme Court declined the cases saying this was a political matter, not a legal matter, so while the authority is not explicit under the Constitution, there is precedent for presidents taking such action.

"The supermajority vote requirement does not apply to two other types of international agreements—sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements. While these agreements are regarded as “treaties” internationally, they are not given the same status as “treaties” within the United States because they have not been made “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Sole-executive agreements are international agreements made by the President alone, while Congressional-executive agreements are executive international agreements that backed by legislation passed by Congress, which only requires a simple majority of both houses, not a supermajority of the Senate."
~~ Executive Branch ~~

So tell me exactly how any POTUS can strike down all of Title 19, Section 21 USC unilaterally with an Executive Order without violating the Separation of Powers doctrine and not bringing down the wrath of the Courts upon his Orange ass! I'm really interested in how that magic trick can be accomplished!

I see I was in error about the advise and consent for a CSA, and for that, my apologies!

 

[Fueri]

Unless the Senate challenges after the fact, yes he likely can.

NAFTA is codified in Title 19, Chapter 21, USC. So are you contending the Orange One can strike down the laws of the land unilaterally? Where is that AUTHORITY WRITTEN in the Constitution or any where else? It simply is not! Just considering the Separation of Powers doctrine, it should be clear that any POTUS is powerless in any wise to do that!

As a matter of law it is unclear the President has that authority, but as a practical matter when Carter withdrew from the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush41 withdrew from the ABM treaty, the Supreme Court declined the cases saying this was a political matter, not a legal matter, so while the authority is not explicit under the Constitution, there is precedent for presidents taking such action.

"The supermajority vote requirement does not apply to two other types of international agreements—sole-executive agreements and congressional-executive agreements. While these agreements are regarded as “treaties” internationally, they are not given the same status as “treaties” within the United States because they have not been made “with the advice and consent of the Senate.” Sole-executive agreements are international agreements made by the President alone, while Congressional-executive agreements are executive international agreements that backed by legislation passed by Congress, which only requires a simple majority of both houses, not a supermajority of the Senate."
~~ Executive Branch ~~

So tell me exactly how any POTUS can strike down all of Title 19, Section 21 USC unilaterally with an Executive Order without violating the Separation of Powers doctrine and not bringing down the wrath of the Courts upon his Orange ass! I'm really interested in how that magic trick can be accomplished!

I see I was in error about the advise and consent for a CSA, and for that, my apologies!

Well I can't and it didn't make sense to me either that he could go even this far until I looked into it.

it's kind of muddy, but not totally out of the question either that he could issue the intent to withdraw without Senate approval.

Where it goes from there is anyone's guess and I doubt it happens anyhow, as he'd more than likely be facing an all out revolt from the right.

but could he issue an EO declaring intent to withdraw, it would seem yes, and, if he does, then the Senate would have to fight it.

In this case I think they would fight it.... and now we're in new and interesting territory.