Central American Free Trade Agreement Bill

[DanielX]

Aye

[Ebowed]

Nay

[True Democrat]

Aye

[Defarge]

Nay.  There has been insufficient debate

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Nay

[Emsworth]

With four Noes, there can be no two-thirds majority, and the motion fails.

[Ebowed]

NAFTA caused hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of well-paying jobs to leave this country.  I fear that CAFTA would have a similar effect.  It is my opinion that this agreement hurts both the workers of the Atlasia and Central America.  I don't see why we should make it easier for corporations to get their jobs in areas with low standards that are reinforced by the weak provisions of CAFTA.  In Honduras, the law prohibits the formation of more than one trade union in a single enterprise; in Guatemala, the labor code mandates that unions obtain permission from the labor unions to strike.  I don't think these laws should be endorsed by our government.

I urge the Senate to defeat this legislation.

[Ebowed]

Dear Senators,

It is a fact that if this CAFTA bill is passed, governments will have little or no control over the investment of foreign companies.  The power of the government is effectively nullified once these trade agreements are passed.  The rights of citizens and local governments will be secondary to the rights of foreign investors under this agreement.  This agreement's weak labor provisions will allow worker's rights in CAFTA countries to continue to be trampled.  As stated in my last comment, countries like Honduras and Guatemala have questionable laws that our government would effectively be endorsing if this agreement bill were passed.  And of course, the loss of jobs in Atlasia and the effective exploitation of the workers of Central America will be another obvious side effect to the passage of this bill.

I once again urge the Senate to reconsider its view on this issue.

[Ebowed]

Further, I would like to ask exactly what sort of impact this bill would have on Section 46-9-40 of the South Carolina code.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Although the state of South Carolina's code is not recognized in Atlasia, I believe how it would impact Section 46-9-40 of the South Carolina code is a powerful example of the far-reaching implications of this bill.

Therefore, I wish to propose an amendment to this bill.

Clauses 1, 2, and 3 shall be stricken and replaced with:

1. Section 46-9-40 of the United States South Carolina code shall officially be recognized as a very important part of code by the Republic of Atlasia.

[Emsworth]

I am not entirely certain that the South Carolina code has anything whatsoever to do with the implementation of CAFTA. Therefore, unless Sen. Ebowed wishes to explain its relevance, I will deem the dilatory amendment frivolous (not only does it have no relevance, but also no effect).

[Ebowed]

Senators and the Vice President,

The code states, "The commission may regulate or prohibit the shipment within, or the importation into, this State of plants, farm products, or other articles of any nature or character from a state, territory, or foreign country when, in the opinion of the commission, the regulation or prohibition is necessary to prevent the introduction or dissemination of plant pests."  The far-reaching implications of this Central American Free Trade Agreement Bill (which, by the way, I'm sure that the Dominican Republic is pretty upset about not being included in the bill name) would, if South Carolina state code were in effect in Atlasia, render this false in the name of free trade and therefore it is an invasion of the rights of local government.  We must preserve local government rights in Atlasia for all the regions; this state law was only used as an example.

Therefore, I demand a vote on my essential amendment.

This agreement tramples upon the rights of local governments to make decisions about tariffs and trade, while at the same time ensures that the federal government endorses low standard laws in Central America.  Our regional governments will be forced to allow large corporations outsourcing jobs to Central American countries and/or the Dominican Republic.  As a result, manufacturing and agriculture jobs will be lost here at home.  NAFTA caused the jobs of thousands of citizens to be lost to cheaper labor in other countries.

My amendment will end this CAFTA nonsense and instead be a symbolic showing of the Senate's support for local government.

[Emsworth]

Firstly, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 4 stipulates that functionally impractical amendments shall be stricken by the presiding officer. The amendment is purely symbolic, and is accordingly not functional.

Secondly, is no constitutionally enumerated power to pass purely symbolic legislation. As long as this remains a bill, and not a simple resolution of the Senate alone, purely symbolic statements with no substance whatsoever are not, I believe, permitted. Therefore, the amendment is also unconstitutional.

Thirdly, and with respect to Sen. Ebowed, I would argue that an amendment to call something "a very important part of code," but that has no substantive affect whatsoever, is frivolous.

This agreement tramples upon the rights of local governments to make decisions about tariffs and trade...

Local government does not have the authority to make these decisions. The Constitution (Article I, Section 7, Clause 5) expressly forbids it.

On the whole, the Senator has the right to challenge my action. The concurrence of one-third of the Senate is required in override this procedural ruling.

[The Duke]

A low is rarely voluntarily accepted by the worker.  If they dispute it, they'll just be ignored or lose their job.  It's not voluntary acceptance; they have to accept it.

Who is to say that unfair wages aren't a violation of human rights?  Paying people less than a dollar an hour for sweatshop work sounds like that to me.

Atlasia had federal minimum wage laws; the Supreme Court just found them unconstitutional.  The Northeast is working on theirs; Pacific Governor John Ford also promised to establish a $7.00 minimum wage in his region.  Hopefully more gets done in that regard, but just because of the Supreme Court decision, that does not mean we should start making deals with all of these countries with ridiculous wage laws.

As soon as the abortion bill is done being voted on (by our Constitution, the vote will end in 4 days) I intend to put that wage law before the Assembly.

[Bono]

§ 11 of Section 5 of Article I of the Atlasian COnstitution forbids the Senate to extend the time extent of patents. However, Chapter 15 of the treaty requires treaty signatories to allow software patents, extend Copyright protections to 70 years after the author's death, and make it illegal to produce 'circumvention devices' for protected works.
Now if the honorable Senators are commited to your oath of honor to defend the Atlasian Constitution, surely you couldn't vote for this egregious circumvent.

[Emsworth]

§ 11 of Section 1 of Article I of the Atlasian COnstitution forbids the Senate to extend the time extent of patents.

Forgive me, Mr. Governor, but Section 1 of Article I does not appear to have a clause 11. If there is indeed such a clause in the Constitution, then I do apologize to the Senate, but the treaty would of course be null and unconstitutional.

[Bono]

§ 11 of Section 1 of Article I of the Atlasian COnstitution forbids the Senate to extend the time extent of patents.

Forgive me, Mr. Governor, but Section 1 of Article I does not appear to have a clause 11. If there is indeed such a clause in the Constitution, then I do apologize to the Senate, but the treaty would of course be null and unconstitutional.

Boo-hoo, I meant section 5.
Fixed.

[Emsworth]

Boo-hoo, I meant section 5.

Ah, I see.

Well, copyrights already extend to seventy years after the author's death, so Chapter 15 has no effect in that case. The other two clauses do not seem to have any implication with regard to extensions of time, but please correct me if I am wrong.

[Bono]

Boo-hoo, I meant section 5.

Ah, I see.

Well, copyrights already extend to seventy years after the author's death, so Chapter 15 has no effect in that case. The other two clauses do not seem to have any implication with regard to extensions of time, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Oh, dang, I just made a total ass out of myself.

[Defarge]

Boo-hoo, I meant section 5.

Ah, I see.

Well, copyrights already extend to seventy years after the author's death, so Chapter 15 has no effect in that case. The other two clauses do not seem to have any implication with regard to extensions of time, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Oh, dang, I just made a total ass out of myself.

Don't worry, we all do it

[Ebowed]

Firstly, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 4 stipulates that functionally impractical amendments shall be stricken by the presiding officer. The amendment is purely symbolic, and is accordingly not functional.

Secondly, is no constitutionally enumerated power to pass purely symbolic legislation. As long as this remains a bill, and not a simple resolution of the Senate alone, purely symbolic statements with no substance whatsoever are not, I believe, permitted. Therefore, the amendment is also unconstitutional.

Thirdly, and with respect to Sen. Ebowed, I would argue that an amendment to call something "a very important part of code," but that has no substantive affect whatsoever, is frivolous.

This agreement tramples upon the rights of local governments to make decisions about tariffs and trade...

Local government does not have the authority to make these decisions. The Constitution (Article I, Section 7, Clause 5) expressly forbids it.

On the whole, the Senator has the right to challenge my action. The concurrence of one-third of the Senate is required in override this procedural ruling.

No need to be so technical   I'll just propose another amendment.

Senators,

It has occured to me that if you wish to support free trade with the nations of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua, which are the first countries that come to my mind when I think of great places to exploit cheap labor in, you would also support free trade with Sealand if you were truly ideologically consistent.  However, there is a discrepancy:  we do not recognize the Principality of Sealand as an independent sovereign nation.  Therefore, I wish to propose the following amendment.

The following clauses will be added to the bill following Clause 3:

4. The Principality of Sealand hereby is recognized by the Republic of Atlasia as an independent sovereign nation apart from that of the United Kingdom.

5. The Government of the Republic of Atlasia hereby recongizes His Royal Highness Prince Roy, The Prince of Sealand as the Head of State for the Principality of Sealand.

6. Pursuant to the passage of this Bill, the State Department of the Republic of Atlasia hereby lifts all economic and military restrictions put upon the Principality of Sealand.

7. The Republic of Atlasia shall open negotiations regarding a free trade agreement with the Principality of Sealand upon the passage of this bill.

[Jake]

Don't we have a single issue bill clause?

[Colin]

Don't we have a single issue bill clause?

Yes we do Jake.

This is nothing more than making a mockery out of the fine institution of the Senate. I will hope that Mr. Emsworth strikes down this frivolous amendment.

[Gabu]

Don't we have a single issue bill clause?

Yes we do Jake.

This is nothing more than making a mockery out of the fine institution of the Senate. I will hope that Mr. Emsworth strikes down this frivolous amendment.

As PPT, you have as much power to do so as the Vice President.

[Colin]

Well alright then.

I declare this amendment to be frivolous and therefore I am stricking it from the official debate. The Senator may challenge the ruling as per the Official Senate Procedural Resolution.

[Ebowed]

Clearly you just oppose this because Honduras has better cheap labor than the honorable Principality of Sealand.