NAFTA could be illegal

Page 4

Part one of a three-part series on the North American Free Trade Agreement

The proposed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) represents a serious threat to the existing constitutional character of the United States and, in fact, may be unconstitutional - that is, it may be illegal.

The Constitution of the United States establishes a "federal" system of government. This means that most powers are distributed between the central government in Washington, D.C. and the various state and tribal governments elsewhere. This is analogous to government structure in Canada, with the federal government centralized in Ottawa and provincial and tribal governments elsewhere.

Under the Constitution, control over education, health, environmental safety and many other issues has traditionally been reserved to the states. Tribes have equal powers with the states since the "Interstate Commerce Clause" gives the federal government only the right "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states and with Indian tribes...."

Just at a time when Native American governments are trying to restore their sovereignty and self-government, NAFTA offers a new threat to them and to state and local governments.

NAFTA is, first of all, a treaty, an agreement between sovereign states. According to the U.S. Constitution, treaties must be approved a two-thirds of the U.S. Senate. Many international agreements important to Native Americans have not yet been ratified the U.S. Senate, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

It is also designed to do away with any and all barriers to the right to try to make money, except one's own labor, anywhere in North America. This means that any laws, codes or government regulations which interfere with, block, hamper or restrain the free flow of goods, money, services, etc. will most likely be nullified either immediately or gradually in certain cases.

But NAFTA is being presented as a so-called"agreement" which can be approved merely a majority vote in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Why aren't agreements guaranteeing basic human rights treated as simple pieces of legislation requiring only a majority vote?

(Professor Jack D. Forbes, Powhatan-Delaware, is the author of Columbus and Other Cannibals, Africans and Native Americans and other books)

Marlene Dolan returns next issue.