|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
- Please refer to the Forum Rules Amended section for additional rules and modifications.
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 05/24/2007 8:15 AM |
|
http://jbs.org/node/4059
This is a fascinating read. Is NAFTA a treaty or not as the Washington Post called it? I would love to hear others comments on this.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/24/2007 7:58 PM |
|
| Apparently (although the JBS article does nothing to help explain this), NAFTA is a treaty in one sense, and not in another sense. Unfortunately, the referenced article is more interested in making vague insults towards the Washington Post than it is about explaining why we should care about the subtle distinctions between a treaty and a congressional-executive agreement. I haven't been able to find anything useful (either at the JBS site or elsewhere) about that point. |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|