Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Temecula, California
    Posts
    2,413
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14053

    Default Free trade and Federalism

    ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:

    Is federalism the solution both to the glut of toxic toys emanating from China and to the economic disaster visited upon American workers in the form of "free trade" agreements like NAFTA?

    Follow this link to the original source: "Toxic toys made in China have parents worried over what their kids might receive for Christmas."

    COMMENTARY:

    On Thursday before Christmas, Wisconsin Public Radio hosted Mr. Sachin Chheda, director of the Wisconsin Fair Trade Coalition, who discussed how America’s trade policy is to blame for the sale of unsafe Chinese toys. Mr. Chheda focused on a new report from Public Citizen entitled "Santa’s Sweatshop: 'Made in D.C.' with Bad Trade Policy, U.S. Toy Corporations' Greedy Offshoring Push Puts Kids at Risk." He mentioned how NAFTA promotes the off-shoring of toy manufacturing in order to cut costs and pull in large profits. By doing so, NAFTA ensures that these manufacturers cannot guarantee the safety of its products.

    When Joy Cardin, the host of the show, mentioned that Wisconsin State Representative Cory Mason recently announced that he would be introducing legislation restricting "the sale of toys and other products for children with unsafe levels of hazardous chemicals," Mr. Chheda commented that while he appreciated the Representative’s show of leadership, he questioned why an individual state would do this and suggested that it should be left to Congress to act upon.

    The states, however, should have a role. The Founding Fathers created a federal system of government rather than the traditional central government system favored elsewhere. In the latter, the central government stands over and above inferior governmental divisions at the regional and local levels. By contrast, the federal system created by the Founders established a national government with limited, defined powers and left all the rest to the states and the people, respectively. Exercising these powers, the people, acting through their state governments, have a legitimate role in regulating commerce within that state, even when the products sold in that state come from another nation.

    Objection may be made that the interstate commerce clause grants to Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." While this has been interpreted expansively in the 20th century as giving the federal government an expansive regulatory reach at the expense of the states, it was intended by the Founding Fathers largely to prevent one state from imposing onerous duties and tariffs on imports being transhipped across state lines, regardless of where those imports began their journey. James Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 42: "this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter." Moreover, the expansive interpretations of the interstate commerce clause favored by statists run counter to the general thinking at the time of the founding of the nation amongst those political architechts who created the Constitution that the resulting government be carefully limited in its powers and jurisdicion.

    As the Constitution makes clear, the states retain those powers not expressly given to the federal government. Consequently, the states should be working on laws that deal with citizen protection from dangerous products, such as those imported from China. Indeed, it would be particularly useful for the entire nation if the states would do so. The resulting laws of each state would essentially spur competition among the states vying for citizens and businesses. States creating the better legal environment for each would be a model for other states to follow. Rather than leading to a large number of cumbersome laws that prevent businesses from operating, such competition between states would lead to a better environment for businesses in all states as those states with successful laws would be emulated over time by the other states.

    Click for full text...
    POLITICAL ACTIVISTS CREED
    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people's minds" -Samuel Adams

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
    stand ready to do violence on their behalf."~George Orwell

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    10,639
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    A sad state of affairs, ain't it?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    9,768
    Thanks (Given)
    1
    Thanks (Received)
    28
    Likes (Given)
    2
    Likes (Received)
    16
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    515526

    Default

    im against free trade, it does nothing but exploit workers, export jobs, and gives multi national corportations with no soul or conquence, all the advantages.


    Quote Originally Posted by Psychoblues View Post
    A sad state of affairs, ain't it?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Newnan, GA
    Posts
    6,236
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    83
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    31137

    Default

    First, free trade brings in cheaper goods for American consumers.
    Second, free trade makes our economy more efficient.
    Third, it brings in capital (i.e. MONEY) to our economy.
    Fourth, if states want to ban all toys made in China from being sold within its borders, it's that state's perogative to do so. Nothing is stopping them.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Temecula, California
    Posts
    2,413
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14053

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5stringJeff View Post
    Fourth, if states want to ban all toys made in China from being sold within its borders, it's that state's perogative to do so. Nothing is stopping them.
    And that is the great thing about Federalism. It keeps the states sovereign and the federal government in check.
    POLITICAL ACTIVISTS CREED
    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brushfires in people's minds" -Samuel Adams

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
    stand ready to do violence on their behalf."~George Orwell

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Newnan, GA
    Posts
    6,236
    Thanks (Given)
    21
    Thanks (Received)
    83
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    31137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 82Marine89 View Post
    And that is the great thing about Federalism. It keeps the states sovereign and the federal government in check.
    Indeed.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    5
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 82Marine89 View Post
    ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:

    Is federalism the solution both to the glut of toxic toys emanating from China and to the economic disaster visited upon American workers in the form of "free trade" agreements like NAFTA?

    Follow this link to the original source: "Toxic toys made in China have parents worried over what their kids might receive for Christmas."

    COMMENTARY:

    On Thursday before Christmas, Wisconsin Public Radio hosted Mr. Sachin Chheda, director of the Wisconsin Fair Trade Coalition, who discussed how America’s trade policy is to blame for the sale of unsafe Chinese toys. Mr. Chheda focused on a new report from Public Citizen entitled "Santa’s Sweatshop: 'Made in D.C.' with Bad Trade Policy, U.S. Toy Corporations' Greedy Offshoring Push Puts Kids at Risk." He mentioned how NAFTA promotes the off-shoring of toy manufacturing in order to cut costs and pull in large profits. By doing so, NAFTA ensures that these manufacturers cannot guarantee the safety of its products.

    When Joy Cardin, the host of the show, mentioned that Wisconsin State Representative Cory Mason recently announced that he would be introducing legislation restricting "the sale of toys and other products for children with unsafe levels of hazardous chemicals," Mr. Chheda commented that while he appreciated the Representative’s show of leadership, he questioned why an individual state would do this and suggested that it should be left to Congress to act upon.

    The states, however, should have a role. The Founding Fathers created a federal system of government rather than the traditional central government system favored elsewhere. In the latter, the central government stands over and above inferior governmental divisions at the regional and local levels. By contrast, the federal system created by the Founders established a national government with limited, defined powers and left all the rest to the states and the people, respectively. Exercising these powers, the people, acting through their state governments, have a legitimate role in regulating commerce within that state, even when the products sold in that state come from another nation.

    Objection may be made that the interstate commerce clause grants to Congress the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." While this has been interpreted expansively in the 20th century as giving the federal government an expansive regulatory reach at the expense of the states, it was intended by the Founding Fathers largely to prevent one state from imposing onerous duties and tariffs on imports being transhipped across state lines, regardless of where those imports began their journey. James Madison pointed out in Federalist No. 42: "this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter." Moreover, the expansive interpretations of the interstate commerce clause favored by statists run counter to the general thinking at the time of the founding of the nation amongst those political architechts who created the Constitution that the resulting government be carefully limited in its powers and jurisdicion.

    As the Constitution makes clear, the states retain those powers not expressly given to the federal government. Consequently, the states should be working on laws that deal with citizen protection from dangerous products, such as those imported from China. Indeed, it would be particularly useful for the entire nation if the states would do so. The resulting laws of each state would essentially spur competition among the states vying for citizens and businesses. States creating the better legal environment for each would be a model for other states to follow. Rather than leading to a large number of cumbersome laws that prevent businesses from operating, such competition between states would lead to a better environment for businesses in all states as those states with successful laws would be emulated over time by the other states.

    Click for full text...
    Protectionists and immigration fearmongers steal jobs.

    Hey, Bush, how about giving back those 200,000 jobs in steal-using industries that you stole? It's a bit too late now.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    45,781
    Thanks (Given)
    20
    Thanks (Received)
    1013
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3867369

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Watermark View Post
    Protectionists and immigration fearmongers steal jobs.

    Hey, Bush, how about giving back those 200,000 jobs in steal-using industries that you stole? It's a bit too late now.
    Last I checked, the US has added jobs every month for over 4 years. We have an employment rate of 95%

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums