Originally Posted by RAKIdaRHINO
I believe what the SPP means when they say it is just a "dialogue" , and "not" a signed agreement is that it is just talk between two or more governments in an effort to come to agreements on "security" and "prosperity" [1] (supposedly non binding, and nothing necessarily will come of it).
The SPP website's claim that there was no agreement appears to be a lie( the "Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada" has a statement on the "Foreword From the Prime Minister" page stating it was indeed a signed agreement).[2]
Even if it was "not" signed does not mean it won't be enacted whole or in part.
The SPP website also claims: "The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty."[1] This is obviously a lie also, it is an agreement and a treaty even if we are to believe it was "not" signed because it is being enacted (agreements ARE being made in relation to the SPP). I will go into further details on the SPP related agreements in a future post on this thread.
It also appears to be against the constitution of the USA. According to article II section II paragraph II of the "Constitution of the United States": He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur. [3]
I cannot find anything that indicates the SPP signed agreement went through the Senate. Since it did not go through the Senate, that makes it an unconstitutional treaty.
Sources
[1] http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp "Myth V Fact" section
[2] http://geo.international.gc.ca/cip-p...rview2-en.aspx under "Canada in North America" 4th paragraph.
[3] "Constitution of the United States of America".
Reply With Quote
