Interesting article... from 2004.
The NAFTA tribunal interpreting Chapter 11 of NAFTA is troubling as the provision was created without really understanding the potential longterm effects of it. Obviously an oversight.
However, you said:
Quote:
|
This is interesting, if not incorrect. SCOTUS rulings have already been challenged by private corporations in the NAFTA tribunal...Successfully.
|
Where exactly does the article say that a Supreme Court of the United States decision had been challenged successfully? I'll show you:
Page 1; Paragraph 1:
Quote:
|
After the highest court in Massachusetts ruled against a Canadian real estate company and after the United State Supreme Court declined to hear its appeal.
|
Page 1; Paragraph 7:
Quote:
|
In the Massachusetts case, brought by Mondev International, the Nafta tribunal decided in 2002 that the Massachusetts courts had not violated international law.
|
Page 1; Paragraph 8:
Quote:
|
But in a separate pending case, brought by a Canadian company challenging the largest jury verdict in Mississippi history, a different Nafta tribunal offered a harsh assessment of Mississippi justice.
|
Page 1; Paragraphs 12-13:
Quote:
The availability of this additional layer of review, above even the United States Supreme Court, is a significant development, legal scholars said.
''It's basically been under the radar screen,'' Peter Spiro, a law professor at Hofstra University, said. ''But it points to a fundamental reorientation of our constitutional system. You have an international tribunal essentially reviewing American court judgments.''
|
The author of the article, reached here as Spiro never stated the Supreme Court decisions are in jeopardy because, well as I stated in my previous post regarding Article III of the Constitution, they are not.
As you can see, the SCOTUS has not been circumvented in either of these cases. Those are STATE supreme courts and last I checked, they didnt have one of the 3 branches of the US government vested in them.
This discussion is going down the sewer because when you get challenged to backup your opinions you say that "the situation is too grey to make a prediction" and then default back to old articles, youtube videos, etc... Or you say that the Constitutional argument isnt necessary or you ride on the poster who challenges you.
Maybe next week when you start a thread about 9/11, the Amero, the NAU or Obama being genealogically linked to Christ, we can start it up again... and there will be a new youtube video.