USA. President Donald Trump arrives at a festive event at the White House on Monday.
Does William Barr abuses the "information of the great jury" rules to hide Müller's conclusions?
The Conservatives of the Supreme Court simply legalized torture
Why did Brett Cavanot change his mind about the rights of religious minorities in the execution chamber?
President Donald Trump is proud of his new trade agreement with Canada and Mexico, the United States and Mexico and Canada. It would be nice if he looked at his terms before transmitting the threats last week to "close the border." The agreement explicitly states that the United States has no unilateral authority to impose a broad ban on cross-border trade.
Article 34.1 addresses the problems that arise during the transition from the North American Free Trade Agreement to the new regime. It begins with the "recognition [ing] of the importance of a smooth transition from NAFTA 1994 to this Agreement. By prior agreement.
Presidential tweets and occasional comments can not reveal any awareness of the illegal nature of his threats. There was also no public effort to make a legal case for his actions. There is currently no indication that the Office of the Legal Cluster Department or the White House attorney is seriously considering this issue.
If Trump still comforts his threat, he will not only break the lives of millions on both sides of the border. It will create a catastrophic precedent that other leaders can use to legitimize the violations of their country by a rule of law system built after the Second World War.
The president not only threatens to destroy a complex network of trade agreements that have contributed so much to global prosperity over the past 75 years. He is also challenging American asylum laws for victims of political oppression in their countries. Instead of arbitrary extortion by the presidential authorities, these laws represent America's post-war reaction to its tragic inability to provide refuge to Jews and other victims of Nazi and Communist in the 1930s.
If the president maintains his threat, he will immediately encounter a number of lawsuits challenging its legitimacy. Undoubtedly, some federal district courts will issue preliminary injunctions, as in the case of Tramp's early bans. But it is difficult to predict whether the appeals courts and the Supreme Court, who have been inclined to broad executive power, would allow the continuation of such extraordinary bans as long as they consider the benefits of the president's legal arguments – whatever they may have been.
Even according to his own standards, Tramp's threats constitute the inevitable violation of the law of the law. A bipartisan group of Republicans and Democrats should demand that the administration immediately submit to the Congress a bill initiating the process through which the new trade agreement will come into force. After Trump advances to confirm his or her own consent, Mrs. Taylor is in the courtroom of the Speaker of the Chamber, Nancy Pelosi. Then, after approval by the Chamber, the leader of the majority of the Senate, Mitch McConnell will not be able to divide him into the committee. Instead, the special procedures governing trade agreements stipulate that the Senate must vote for the agreement within 45 days of the adoption of the measure.
Then it will not be necessary for the Senate to spend 45 days before voting. The long review period between NAFTA and the Obama and Trump administrations has already given a broad bipartisan support to the deal. The Congress is quite possible in order to prevent legal and economic chaos at the border if Trump is ready to fulfill its obligation to submit an agreement on rapid adoption of the law.
Even according to his own standards, the threats to Trump represent the inevitable violation of the rule of law. If he carries them, he can blame himself in his terrible short- and long-term consequences.