I remember as a child opening a box of cereal looking for the surprise toy inside. I also remember being disappointed to find a cheap piece of plastic that I ignored about five minutes after opening it. While that surprise was disappointing, it wasn’t until I had opened a few more boxes before I realized that cheap toys were the rule.
As an adult, I’ve found there are other surprises that are far more dangerous. I’m sure we’re all familiar the story of the Trojan Horse, so the idea of hiding a “surprise” inside something someone wants isn’t new. I found out the other day about another surprise, one I believe most Americans will also be disappointed in. While the prize in a box of cereal may cause some short-term angst, what’s in this treaty will create a very long-term problem for the republic.
I discovered a letter from several members of Congress to President Trump about language in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
We are, however, deeply concerned by the unprecedented inclusion in the U.S-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) language, for the first time in a Free Trade Agreement. This language is housed in Article 23.9 and Article 23.12(5)(l)(i).
Ratification of this treaty would codify language that Congress has repeatedly opposed and rejected. This Trojan Horse would bypass our elected representatives and institute law not based on the Constitution, but on the desires of foreign governments. How could this be? Because of the Supremacy Clause.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2
Treaties made under the authority of the United States (i.e., the federal government) are the supreme law of the land. If you read this clause closely, you’ll see that only treaties made under the authority of the United States are included in the list. So can a treaty supersede the Constitution? Technically, no, but we’ve drifted so far from following what the Constitution actually says that nobody bothers to ask if the United States has the authority to implement these types of laws in the first place.
[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;
We’ve all been taught that the President negotiates the treaty and then the Senate ratifies it. But look at what the Constitution actually says: The President makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate. How can the Senate give advice if they are not included in the negotiations? Was the Senate included in the negotiations of this treaty? Did they review and comment on the language while it was being developed? Did they give advice or were they kept in the dark until the language was complete? Regrettably, those who signed the letter to the President are members of the House of Representatives and have no say in the treaty making process. What I haven’t found are any letters by these same members to the Senate regarding their concerns. Why? I believe because they’ve been taught, incorrectly, that the Senate has no input on the language of the treaty, only the option to ratify it or not.
These House members have a concern about SOGI language being included in a trade treaty. If we bothered to follow the Constitution, then the Senate would have been involved in the language of the treaty from the beginning and could have weighed in before now. So why the concern about including this language in the USMCA treaty? Because it is an attempt to establish by treaty something Congress has repeatedly rejected.
Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government… The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.
Our first president was right to be concerned. How much of this particular language is foreign influence and how much is our own bureaucracy? I’m not sure. What does appear to be happening is a foreign nation is trying to influence U.S. law through the treaty process. They want us to create a new protected class around “gender identity”, not through our representatives but by sticking language into a treaty that they think we’ll sign on to. Worse than that, they are trying to get us to effectively sign on to a treaty we have already rejected.
1. The Parties recognize the importance of cooperation as a mechanism for effective implementation of this Chapter, to enhance opportunities to improve labor standards, and to further advance common commitments regarding labor matters, including the principles and rights stated in the ILO Declaration on Rights at Work
Part of the USMCA includes all parties committing to “improve labor standards”, including those in the ILO Declaration on Rights at Work. While the U.S. has adopted some of the standards in this declaration, do we really want to turn over part of our national sovereignty to an international organization, one which frequently has agendas that are anathema to the fundamental rights and liberties that America was founded on? Don’t get me wrong, I do believe Americans should promote a fair labor environment, but fair defined by whom? History has shown that placing our rights under the direction of others rarely protects them, and especially under the control of organizations run by countries with a much more socialist and tyrannical method of governing. What happens when the ILO decides that religious exemptions are no longer allowed? What about the freedom of speech and the rights of both the workers to organize and the employer to decide what jobs they will offer?
While I believe the idea behind the treaty is a good one (establishing fair and open trading with our neighbors), this extraneous language is a poison pill and we should derail any attempt to ratify it. Since the people now elect our Senators, it’s about time we tell them to do their jobs or we’ll find people who will. If they want to delegate treaty negotiations to the executive branch, then let’s find people who will represent their state’s interests rather than their re-election campaigns.
