Was NAFTA signed?

Question

i missed what happened. did they agree on it, or did they bury it?

some one tell me

Answer 1

it was actually signed by bush, canadian priminister mulroney and mex president salinas. This was in 1992. Clinton signed it into law in 1994.

Answer 2

Signing of NAFTA   and adminstrating it is  somehow a hot  topic.

However,  I havent found a single person who gives a plug hoot about NAFTA  or  thinks its made any difference in the lives of Americans.

Lets face it   American Factory workers have priced themselves right out of jobs.  Too much money for driving screws  and tightening bolts.  

Hillary and Obama  are just BS ing around.  Those high paying factory jobs are gone and Ive moved on with my life and found other stuff to do and have made more money that working in a factory  and im healthier too.

I dont care about NAFTA one bit

Answer 3

Yes. NAFTA was initiated by Carter, Regan and Bush, Sr. It was signed during Bill Clinton's turn, who by the way, took credit for it.

Answer 4

it was signed into law like a minute ago now...i was just a wee pup and knew it was a bad idea...

Answer 5

Yes, the pandering, impeached Ex-President William J. Clinton did the dirty deed.  

Signing NAFTA,  I mean.

Answer 6

NAFTA was signed during the Clinton Administration.

Free trade is good for the USA and so is NAFTA.

What Justice Robert H. Jackson - a Democrat from New York appointed by FDR - said about interstate free trade in Duckworth v. Arkansas, 314 U.S. 390 (1941) is equally applicable to international free trade: -

The opinion of the Court solves the present case through a construction of the interstate commerce power. It regards this liquor as a legitimate subject of a lawful commerce, and then, because of its special characteristics, approves this admittedly novel permit system, and thus expands the power of the state to regulate such lawful commerce beyond anything this Court has yet approved.

The extent to which state legislation may be allowed to affect the conduct of interstate business in the absence of Congressional action on the subject has long been a vexatious problem. Recently, the tendency has been to abandon the earlier limitations and to sustain more freely such state laws on the ground that Congress has power to supersede them with regulation of its own. It is a tempting escape from a difficult question to pass to Congress the responsibility for continued existence of local restraints and obstructions to national commerce. But these restraints are individually too petty, too diversified, and too local to get the attention of a Congress hard pressed with more urgent matters. The practical result is that, in default of action by us, they will go on suffocating and retarding and Balkanizing American commerce, trade, and industry.

I differ basically with my brethren as to whether the inertia of government shall be on the side of restraint of commerce or on the side of freedom of commerce. The sluggishness of government, the multitude of matters that clamor for attention, and the relative ease with which men are persuaded to postpone troublesome decisions all make inertia one of the most decisive powers in determining the course of our affairs, and frequently gives to the established order of things a longevity and vitality much beyond its merits. Because that is so, I am reluctant to see any new local systems for restraining our national commerce

Page 314 U. S. 401

get the prestige and power of established institutions. The Court's present opinion and tendency would allow the states to establish the restraints and let commerce struggle for Congressional action to make it free. This trend I am unwilling to further -- in any event, beyond the plain requirements of existing cases.

If the reaction of this Court against what many of us have regarded as an excessive judicial interference with legislative action is to yield wholesome results, we must be cautious lest we merely rush to other extremes. The excessive use for insufficient reason of a judicially inflated due process clause to strike down states' laws regulating their own internal affairs, such as hours of labor in industry, minimum wage requirements, and standards for working conditions, is one thing. To invoke the interstate commerce clause to keep the many states from fastening their several concepts of local "wellbeing" onto the national commerce is a wholly different thing.

Our national free intercourse is never in danger of being suddenly stifled by dramatic and sweeping acts of restraint. That would produce its own antidote. Our danger, as the forefathers well knew, is from the aggregate strangling effect of a multiplicity of individually petty and diverse and local regulations. Each may serve some local purpose worthy enough by itself. Congress may very properly take into consideration local policies and dangers when it exercises its power under the commerce clause. But to let each locality conjure up its own dangers and be the judge of the remedial restraints to be clamped onto interstate trade inevitably retards our national economy and disintegrates our national society. It is the movement and exchange of goods that sustain living standards both of him who produces and of him who consumes. This vital national interest in free commerce among the states must not be jeopardized.

Page 314 U. S. 402

I do not suppose the skies will fall if the Court does allow Arkansas to rig up this handy device for policing liquor on the ground that it is not forbidden by the commerce clause, but, in doing so, it adds another to the already too numerous and burdensome state restraints of national commerce and pursues a trend with which I would have no part.

[Justice Jackson was vindicated by later dormant Commerce Clause analysis in the Supreme Court of the U.S.]

Free trade is good for the USA. NAFTA is good for the USA. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff pushed the USA and the rest of the world into the Great Depression. The tariff increased tariffs dramatically and the USA lost jobs.

'In 1932, with international trade in collapse, Franklin Roosevelt denounced Smoot-Hawley as ruinous. Hoover responded that Roosevelt would have Americans compete with "peasant and sweated labor" abroad. Then, as now, protectionism had a strong if superficial political appeal: by election eve, F.D.R. had backed down, assuring voters that he understood the need for tariffs. Protectionist politicking, however, could not save the Republicans in 1932. Smoot and Hawley joined Hoover in defeat. The Democrats dismantled the G.O.P.'s legislative handiwork with caution, using reciprocal trade agreements rather than across-the-board tariff reductions. The Smoot-Hawley approach was discredited. Sam Rayburn, House Democratic Speaker from 1940 until 1961, insisted that any party member who wanted to serve on the Ways and Means Committee had to support reciprocity, not protectionism.'

from Time Magazine, "Shades of Smoot-Hawley

Monday, Oct. 07, 1985"

2 days ago - Edit - Delete

Source(s):

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Walte... e_angst

Walter E. Williams

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl...

Answer 7

NAFTA was signed way back in the '90's. Bill Clinton signed it after being pursuaded by Bush, Sr., Ford, Carter and Reagan.

Answer 8

Bill Clinton SIGNED NAFTA when he was in office.

Answer 9

if you want information about nafta go to the link that I'm attaching. oh, by the way the meeting they recently had was more on the issue of the SPP and not NAFTA.

Answer 10

Where have you been for the last 13 years? Nafta was signed by Bill Clinton, it was a bad idea, and Hillary wants to expand it.

Answer 11

Yes, it was signed by President Clinton.

Answer 12

Excuse me hippy, there's no such thing. America is number one and we'll be more number one when we're the united continent of NAU