Trump did this at the UN summit. Is he the absolute worst US POTUS when it comes to following diplomatic protocol? W. could be really, really bad but not this consistently terrible and spiteful.
As the Argentinian president greeted him in Spanish, Trump took his his translation earpiece off telling Macri 'I think I understood you better in your language than through the translator'.
Just moments earlier Trump looked annoyed with the translation as he kept pressing the machine into his ear.
American staffer: “Did he just walk off again?! Dear God, I need a drink!”
Mexican staffer: “I’m buying. How did you get him to sign that updated NAFTA?”
American staffer: “We told him he came up with all of it himself.”
Canadian staffer: “Do you think it’ll pass Congress though?”
American staffer: “Who cares? NAFTA is still in place until he does.”
Mexican staffer: *raises hands* “Crisis averted!”
Canadian staffer: *high fives* “Crisis averted!”
American staffer: *high fives* “Crisis averted! Thank Christ we avoided ONE crisis anyway!”
Breaking: Trump says he’ll be “formally terminating NAFTA”, says Congress will have a choice between replacement or nothing.
The Associated Press are also reporting that Trump will meet Kim Jong Un sometime in January or February, and that three sites for the summit are currently under consideration.
American staffer: “Did he just walk off again?! Dear God, I need a drink!”
Mexican staffer: “I’m buying. How did you get him to sign that updated NAFTA?”
American staffer: “We told him he came up with all of it himself.”
Canadian staffer: “Do you think it’ll pass Congress though?”
American staffer: “Who cares? NAFTA is still in place until he does.”
Mexican staffer: *raises hands* “Crisis averted!”
Canadian staffer: *high fives* “Crisis averted!”
American staffer: *high fives* “Crisis averted! Thank Christ we avoided ONE crisis anyway!”
American staffer: “Did he just walk off again?! Dear God, I need a drink!”
Mexican staffer: “I’m buying. How did you get him to sign that updated NAFTA?”
American staffer: “We told him he came up with all of it himself.”
Canadian staffer: “Do you think it’ll pass Congress though?”
American staffer: “Who cares? NAFTA is still in place until he does.”
Mexican staffer: *raises hands* “Crisis averted!”
Canadian staffer: *high fives* “Crisis averted!”
American staffer: *high fives* “Crisis averted! Thank Christ we avoided ONE crisis anyway!”
This is an incredible display of disrespect to basically everyone at the G20; it's effectively him saying he doesn't want to hear what you have to say.
Trump did this at the UN summit. Is he the absolute worst US POTUS when it comes to following diplomatic protocol? W. could be really, really bad but not this consistently terrible and spiteful.
As the Argentinian president greeted him in Spanish, Trump took his his translation earpiece off telling Macri 'I think I understood you better in your language than through the translator'.
Just moments earlier Trump looked annoyed with the translation as he kept pressing the machine into his ear.
This just seems like the earpiece (those are a thing!?) wasn't working correctly.
Of course he handled it like a toddler instead of using his words
Treaties are law - they don't actually count until Congress ratifies them, for example. The president can't repeal law.
He has substantial power to fuck it up, though, he could basically screw it into abeyance faster than Congress could get around to repealing it themselves.
Treaties are law - they don't actually count until Congress ratifies them, for example. The president can't repeal law.
He has substantial power to fuck it up, though, he could basically screw it into abeyance faster than Congress could get around to repealing it themselves.
Bush broke the ABM treaty without a congressional vote
Treaties are law - they don't actually count until Congress ratifies them, for example. The president can't repeal law.
He has substantial power to fuck it up, though, he could basically screw it into abeyance faster than Congress could get around to repealing it themselves.
Bush broke the ABM treaty without a congressional vote
Treaties are law - they don't actually count until Congress ratifies them, for example. The president can't repeal law.
He has substantial power to fuck it up, though, he could basically screw it into abeyance faster than Congress could get around to repealing it themselves.
Bush broke the ABM treaty without a congressional vote
Treaties are law - they don't actually count until Congress ratifies them, for example. The president can't repeal law.
He has substantial power to fuck it up, though, he could basically screw it into abeyance faster than Congress could get around to repealing it themselves.
Bush broke the ABM treaty without a congressional vote
Also not a trade agreement. The commerce clause gives congress considerably more constitutional power over NAFTA.
Treaties are law - they don't actually count until Congress ratifies them, for example. The president can't repeal law.
He has substantial power to fuck it up, though, he could basically screw it into abeyance faster than Congress could get around to repealing it themselves.
Bush broke the ABM treaty without a congressional vote
Also not a trade agreement. The commerce clause gives congress considerably more constitutional power over NAFTA.
Yes and no. The question of executive power to withdraw unilaterally from FTAs is not settled.
The Congressional Research Service's opinion can be found on page 8 here: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44630.pdf
So Trump agreed to delay tariffs against China for 3 months, so that talks about Chinese practices and so on can happen.
Odds on accomplishing more than ceremonial or performative acts?
This is solely so he can blame the effects of his higher tariffs in 90 days (which he has every intention of enacting, unless you believe that after years of strident anti-China rhetoric he'll decide in 90 days that they're okay after all) on the incoming Democratic House majority
So what we're saying is we're going to have another branch v. branch fight over powers of the country
Wooweee
I expect the dems will tell trump to pound sand if he tries to swing his dick around given that they have zero reason to co-operate with him after the past 2 years.
So Trump agreed to delay tariffs against China for 3 months, so that talks about Chinese practices and so on can happen.
Odds on accomplishing more than ceremonial or performative acts?
This is solely so he can blame the effects of his higher tariffs in 90 days (which he has every intention of enacting, unless you believe that after years of strident anti-China rhetoric he'll decide in 90 days that they're okay after all) on the incoming Democratic House majority
And I hope the first thing the Democrats do when that happens, is pass a trade bill (that someone should already be writing), with the purpose of rescinding those tariffs. And put it on McConnell and the Presidential veto to keep them in place.
Trump wants the tariffs in place, he and Republican Senate leadership can fucking own it.
Like seriously: Trump has struggled to get anything done during the time when he should have been on easy street since his party effectively controlled all major branches of government, instead choosing to waste precious time at his god forsaken country club and campaigning for the job he already has to rubes who already voted for him. The dude had everything he needed to begin a real republican golden age.
So yeah: let him try and annul the treaty. I'm sure the dems can spend the next two years fighting the move in the courts and it also serves to maintain seperation of powers so it's good for the nation as a whole.
Ah, but he was being thwarted at every turn by the Deep State! and distracted by the baseless WITCH HUNT!
And the judges kept fussing about some silly little thing called the Constitution.
Also, the dog ate his homework the papers he was supposed to read and sign, the long boring ones, kept disappearing. For some reason.
So, clearly, none of that was his fault. Nothing is ever his fault.
Like seriously: Trump has struggled to get anything done during the time when he should have been on easy street since his party effectively controlled all major branches of government, instead choosing to waste precious time at his god forsaken country club and campaigning for the job he already has to rubes who already voted for him. The dude had everything he needed to begin a real republican golden age.
So yeah: let him try and annul the treaty. I'm sure the dems can spend the next two years fighting the move in the courts and it also serves to maintain seperation of powers so it's good for the nation as a whole.
Well, the one thing conservatives like more than being in power, it's playing the victim.
Oh, sure, we had majorities in all branches of government. But it's those meddling kids dems who made it impossible to actually pass anything! Murc's law proves it!
Are you sure Trump can't terminate NAFTA? afaik the president can break treaties if he invokes the treaty's termination clause
NAFTA wasn't passed as a Treaty, it was given "fast track" authority and so is simply Domestic Law that just so happens to match Canada and Mexico exactly. Trump can trigger the termination clause, but unless or until Congress alters 19 USC 21, we will continue to have NAFTA. Just maybe no longer have access to dispute resolution measures/ those always being determined against us.
+5
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Are you sure Trump can't terminate NAFTA? afaik the president can break treaties if he invokes the treaty's termination clause
NAFTA wasn't passed as a Treaty, it was given "fast track" authority and so is simply Domestic Law that just so happens to match Canada and Mexico exactly. Trump can trigger the termination clause, but unless or until Congress alters 19 USC 21, we will continue to have NAFTA. Just maybe no longer have access to dispute resolution measures/ those always being determined against us.
Yeah the NAFTA Implementation Act is the law that basically says "implement in accordance with the treaty", so if withdrawing unilaterally is possible it would still remain mostly in place.
I think this is the most relevant bit from Dongs link.
U.S. FTAs have historically been approved as congressional executive agreements by a majority vote of each house of Congress rather than as treaties ratified by the President after Senate approval by a two thirds majority vote. FTAs are not self executing agreements. Thus, legislation is required to provide U.S. bodies with domestic legal authority necessary to enforce and comply with the agreements’ provisions. FTAs are legally binding agreements under international law
Are you sure Trump can't terminate NAFTA? afaik the president can break treaties if he invokes the treaty's termination clause
NAFTA wasn't passed as a Treaty, it was given "fast track" authority and so is simply Domestic Law that just so happens to match Canada and Mexico exactly. Trump can trigger the termination clause, but unless or until Congress alters 19 USC 21, we will continue to have NAFTA. Just maybe no longer have access to dispute resolution measures/ those always being determined against us.
Yeah the NAFTA Implementation Act is the law that basically says "implement in accordance with the treaty", so if withdrawing unilaterally is possible it would still remain mostly in place.
I think this is the most relevant bit from Dongs link.
U.S. FTAs have historically been approved as congressional executive agreements by a majority vote of each house of Congress rather than as treaties ratified by the President after Senate approval by a two thirds majority vote. FTAs are not self executing agreements. Thus, legislation is required to provide U.S. bodies with domestic legal authority necessary to enforce and comply with the agreements’ provisions. FTAs are legally binding agreements under international law
It needs to be law to work in the first place.
Trump withdrawing from NAFTA doesn't repeal the implementing law.
Are you sure Trump can't terminate NAFTA? afaik the president can break treaties if he invokes the treaty's termination clause
NAFTA wasn't passed as a Treaty, it was given "fast track" authority and so is simply Domestic Law that just so happens to match Canada and Mexico exactly. Trump can trigger the termination clause, but unless or until Congress alters 19 USC 21, we will continue to have NAFTA. Just maybe no longer have access to dispute resolution measures/ those always being determined against us.
Yeah the NAFTA Implementation Act is the law that basically says "implement in accordance with the treaty", so if withdrawing unilaterally is possible it would still remain mostly in place.
I think this is the most relevant bit from Dongs link.
U.S. FTAs have historically been approved as congressional executive agreements by a majority vote of each house of Congress rather than as treaties ratified by the President after Senate approval by a two thirds majority vote. FTAs are not self executing agreements. Thus, legislation is required to provide U.S. bodies with domestic legal authority necessary to enforce and comply with the agreements’ provisions. FTAs are legally binding agreements under international law
It needs to be law to work in the first place.
Hm. Are FTAs like that everywhere? Because you're right, FTAs involve a lot of commercial and industrial regulation, that couldn't possibly just exist via agreement with other nations. Like, the US and Canada might agree to label a certain product a certain way, but either government would need some way to regulate its domestic producers of that product to make them label it that way. It's one thing to agree with another country that all the oranges you trade them are going to be a certain size; it's another entirely to actually make sure all your oranges are actually that size.
Are you sure Trump can't terminate NAFTA? afaik the president can break treaties if he invokes the treaty's termination clause
NAFTA wasn't passed as a Treaty, it was given "fast track" authority and so is simply Domestic Law that just so happens to match Canada and Mexico exactly. Trump can trigger the termination clause, but unless or until Congress alters 19 USC 21, we will continue to have NAFTA. Just maybe no longer have access to dispute resolution measures/ those always being determined against us.
Yeah the NAFTA Implementation Act is the law that basically says "implement in accordance with the treaty", so if withdrawing unilaterally is possible it would still remain mostly in place.
I think this is the most relevant bit from Dongs link.
U.S. FTAs have historically been approved as congressional executive agreements by a majority vote of each house of Congress rather than as treaties ratified by the President after Senate approval by a two thirds majority vote. FTAs are not self executing agreements. Thus, legislation is required to provide U.S. bodies with domestic legal authority necessary to enforce and comply with the agreements’ provisions. FTAs are legally binding agreements under international law
It needs to be law to work in the first place.
Hm. Are FTAs like that everywhere? Because you're right, FTAs involve a lot of commercial and industrial regulation, that couldn't possibly just exist via agreement with other nations. Like, the US and Canada might agree to label a certain product a certain way, but either government would need some way to regulate its domestic producers of that product to make them label it that way. It's one thing to agree with another country that all the oranges you trade them are going to be a certain size; it's another entirely to actually make sure all your oranges are actually that size.
Most other places don't have a 2/3rds requirement for Treaties and just pass them as Treaties because the Prime Minister runs the Government. Regardless, Treaties have the force of law and would override conflicting law similar to Federal Supremacy. FTA's also have enforcement/dispute resolution mechanisms and independent means of producing them that are basically trade courts. If we think Canada isn't abiding by NAFTA we take them to a tribunal to get them to stop jacking their lumber.
moniker on
+2
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Are you sure Trump can't terminate NAFTA? afaik the president can break treaties if he invokes the treaty's termination clause
NAFTA wasn't passed as a Treaty, it was given "fast track" authority and so is simply Domestic Law that just so happens to match Canada and Mexico exactly. Trump can trigger the termination clause, but unless or until Congress alters 19 USC 21, we will continue to have NAFTA. Just maybe no longer have access to dispute resolution measures/ those always being determined against us.
Yeah the NAFTA Implementation Act is the law that basically says "implement in accordance with the treaty", so if withdrawing unilaterally is possible it would still remain mostly in place.
I think this is the most relevant bit from Dongs link.
U.S. FTAs have historically been approved as congressional executive agreements by a majority vote of each house of Congress rather than as treaties ratified by the President after Senate approval by a two thirds majority vote. FTAs are not self executing agreements. Thus, legislation is required to provide U.S. bodies with domestic legal authority necessary to enforce and comply with the agreements’ provisions. FTAs are legally binding agreements under international law
It needs to be law to work in the first place.
Hm. Are FTAs like that everywhere? Because you're right, FTAs involve a lot of commercial and industrial regulation, that couldn't possibly just exist via agreement with other nations. Like, the US and Canada might agree to label a certain product a certain way, but either government would need some way to regulate its domestic producers of that product to make them label it that way. It's one thing to agree with another country that all the oranges you trade them are going to be a certain size; it's another entirely to actually make sure all your oranges are actually that size.
Yeah I'm not sure, I think the specifics here are due to how the government is arranged (my country doesn't have a president anyway for example), but it makes sense that you'd need to specifically implement a lot of these things into law. Wikipedia seems to suggest as such, but also that it is varies a lot.
Edit: I think the description given here is specific to the US though. It's possible to have your government bodies have the authority to enforce treaty provisions in general, so that ratification immediately gives them authority. I think.
Posts
Odds on accomplishing more than ceremonial or performative acts?
Tom Brenner is photojournalist for national politics and hockey player
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/11/30/trump-drops-translation-earpiece-g20-meeting-argentina-president/
Mexican staffer: “I’m buying. How did you get him to sign that updated NAFTA?”
American staffer: “We told him he came up with all of it himself.”
Canadian staffer: “Do you think it’ll pass Congress though?”
American staffer: “Who cares? NAFTA is still in place until he does.”
Mexican staffer: *raises hands* “Crisis averted!”
Canadian staffer: *high fives* “Crisis averted!”
American staffer: *high fives* “Crisis averted! Thank Christ we avoided ONE crisis anyway!”
The Associated Press are also reporting that Trump will meet Kim Jong Un sometime in January or February, and that three sites for the summit are currently under consideration.
Not actually a thing he can do!
Good to know! Because he’s being VERY specific about it according to the AP. He expects the NAFTA replacement to be in within six months.
Is this high level game of sundowning or petulant toddler?
Does it have to be one or the other?
It is just normal anybody under the age of, like, ten.
"I'm done with this now, time to just drop it and do something else."
I expect at least as much capability from POTUS.
This just seems like the earpiece (those are a thing!?) wasn't working correctly.
Of course he handled it like a toddler instead of using his words
I sure believe it.
This is the stupidest possible explanation so I buy it as plausible.
He has substantial power to fuck it up, though, he could basically screw it into abeyance faster than Congress could get around to repealing it themselves.
Bush broke the ABM treaty without a congressional vote
Was that ratified by congress?
yes
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/03/senate-ratifies-abm-treaty-aug-3-1972-241170
Also not a trade agreement. The commerce clause gives congress considerably more constitutional power over NAFTA.
Wooweee
Yes and no. The question of executive power to withdraw unilaterally from FTAs is not settled.
The Congressional Research Service's opinion can be found on page 8 here:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44630.pdf
This is solely so he can blame the effects of his higher tariffs in 90 days (which he has every intention of enacting, unless you believe that after years of strident anti-China rhetoric he'll decide in 90 days that they're okay after all) on the incoming Democratic House majority
I expect the dems will tell trump to pound sand if he tries to swing his dick around given that they have zero reason to co-operate with him after the past 2 years.
And I hope the first thing the Democrats do when that happens, is pass a trade bill (that someone should already be writing), with the purpose of rescinding those tariffs. And put it on McConnell and the Presidential veto to keep them in place.
Trump wants the tariffs in place, he and Republican Senate leadership can fucking own it.
So yeah: let him try and annul the treaty. I'm sure the dems can spend the next two years fighting the move in the courts and it also serves to maintain seperation of powers so it's good for the nation as a whole.
And the judges kept fussing about some silly little thing called the Constitution.
Also, the dog ate his homework the papers he was supposed to read and sign, the long boring ones, kept disappearing. For some reason.
So, clearly, none of that was his fault. Nothing is ever his fault.
Well, the one thing conservatives like more than being in power, it's playing the victim.
Oh, sure, we had majorities in all branches of government. But it's those meddling kids dems who made it impossible to actually pass anything! Murc's law proves it!
NAFTA wasn't passed as a Treaty, it was given "fast track" authority and so is simply Domestic Law that just so happens to match Canada and Mexico exactly. Trump can trigger the termination clause, but unless or until Congress alters 19 USC 21, we will continue to have NAFTA. Just maybe no longer have access to dispute resolution measures/ those always being determined against us.
Yeah the NAFTA Implementation Act is the law that basically says "implement in accordance with the treaty", so if withdrawing unilaterally is possible it would still remain mostly in place.
I think this is the most relevant bit from Dongs link.
It needs to be law to work in the first place.
Trump withdrawing from NAFTA doesn't repeal the implementing law.
Hm. Are FTAs like that everywhere? Because you're right, FTAs involve a lot of commercial and industrial regulation, that couldn't possibly just exist via agreement with other nations. Like, the US and Canada might agree to label a certain product a certain way, but either government would need some way to regulate its domestic producers of that product to make them label it that way. It's one thing to agree with another country that all the oranges you trade them are going to be a certain size; it's another entirely to actually make sure all your oranges are actually that size.
Most other places don't have a 2/3rds requirement for Treaties and just pass them as Treaties because the Prime Minister runs the Government. Regardless, Treaties have the force of law and would override conflicting law similar to Federal Supremacy. FTA's also have enforcement/dispute resolution mechanisms and independent means of producing them that are basically trade courts. If we think Canada isn't abiding by NAFTA we take them to a tribunal to get them to stop jacking their lumber.
Yeah I'm not sure, I think the specifics here are due to how the government is arranged (my country doesn't have a president anyway for example), but it makes sense that you'd need to specifically implement a lot of these things into law. Wikipedia seems to suggest as such, but also that it is varies a lot.
Edit: I think the description given here is specific to the US though. It's possible to have your government bodies have the authority to enforce treaty provisions in general, so that ratification immediately gives them authority. I think.
Incoming Freshmen don't have fucks to give.
Alex Kane is a freelance writer on Israel/Palestine, article is picked up by The Intercept
*massive sigh*
It's disheartening when you make a joke, and the reality is even stupider.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube