Snopes Resolves the whole NAU Nutjob Theory

[Tomblvd]

The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP.

Jerome, I have absolutely no idea how what you posted has to do with executive authority.

Could you elaborate?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Jerome, I have absolutely no idea how what you posted has to do with executive authority.

Could you elaborate?

Those agencies are under the authority of the executive.

 

[Tomblvd]

Those agencies are under the authority of the executive.

That doesn't answer my question. Cabinet departments aren't able to unilaterally enact legislation (see the furor over the Patriot Act).

And PLEASE answer the other questions.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

All I ask is exactly how a member of the executive branch would be able to bring about such sweeping, constitution busting change without approval of Congress.

Incrementally.

All I ask is how a sitting president would be able, without the support of the American people or Congress, be able to form a North American Union?

Slow and steady, like the tortoise in the race with the hare.

While you're at it, could you please provide evidence that this is actively being pursued by the Bush administration.

That would take some extensive research which is impossible because the public is not privy to the exact measures of the agreements.

The SPP website tells us that executive agencies will be the tool of implementation, just not the specifics.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That doesn't answer my question. Cabinet departments aren't able to unilaterally enact legislation (see the furor over the Patriot Act).

And PLEASE answer the other questions.

I am not sure what it is you are asking for.

Please, give me all the questions you have and I will attempt to answer them as best I can.

 

[Tomblvd]

Here are the questions:

What, exactly, would the "laws" that the President would pass to for this NAU look like?

Since this president won't be around for its formation, which candidates will form the union?

Considering the war(s), Congress could end them if they were to vote to defund them. What would prevent Congress from stepping in to prevent this takeover?

And I would ask you to be more specific than you were with twinstead. "Incrementally" and "Slow and steady" are not answers. You are making specific allegations here, you must have a pretty good idea how this will come to pass, otherwise you would not be able to be so sure of yourself.

 

[twinstead]

And I would ask you to be more specific than you were with twinstead. "Incrementally" and "Slow and steady" are not answers. You are making specific allegations here, you must have a pretty good idea how this will come to pass, otherwise you would not be able to be so sure of yourself.

I would imagine that he would indeed have extremely specific answers to your and my questions, otherwise how could he be so sure of himself?

So. My angle is that even if, and this is a big IF, the POTUS wanted to merge the US, Canada, and Mexico into a union, the American, Mexican, and Canadian people, as well as the US congress, would not only WANT to stop it dead, but would be able to easily.

An executive order would only get one so far. This is too far.

 

[Tomblvd]

I am not sure what it is you are asking for.

You said that the president would use "executive authority" to enact this takeover. I merely pointed out that the cabinet departments aren't able to make law on their own, without Congress, and I pointed out the furor over the Patriot Act as proof. If Bush wanted that so bad, why didn't he just use his executive authority to enact it?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What, exactly, would the "laws" that the President would pass to for this NAU look like?

No laws exactly. This is the beauty of bureaucracies, they enact policy.

Since this president won't be around for its formation, which candidates will form the union?

Hillary, was it not her husband that set the ball rolling?

Considering the war(s), Congress could end them if they were to vote to defund them. What would prevent Congress from stepping in to prevent this takeover?

Now you are thinking! Nothing could stop congress from de-funding most anything the executive does. Of course congress could de-fund the war. Now the question becomes: Why did the Dems run on stopping the war during the mid-term elections and not stop the war after winning?

And I would ask you to be more specific than you were with twinstead. "Incrementally" and "Slow and steady" are not answers. You are making specific allegations here, you must have a pretty good idea how this will come to pass, otherwise you would not be able to be so sure of yourself.

All I can tell you is how the SPP agreement; of which the executives of three nations were the parties, tells us it is to be implemented.

The SPP stated that it will be implemented slowly through the bureaucracies under the control of the executive.

 

[Tomblvd]

I would imagine that he would indeed have extremely specific answers to your and my questions, otherwise how could he be so sure of himself?

My point exactly. If there is some mechanism to do this, I would assume he'd have some idea how it worked.

An executive order would only get one so far. This is too far.

Not to mention EOs have limits.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

An executive order would only get one so far. This is too far.

The executive order was only brought into the conversation because someone linked to an executive order as if it were law to present that the executive had no ability to create law.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You said that the president would use "executive authority" to enact this takeover. I merely pointed out that the cabinet departments aren't able to make law on their own, without Congress, and I pointed out the furor over the Patriot Act as proof. If Bush wanted that so bad, why didn't he just use his executive authority to enact it?

I didn't call it a take over, and I am not certain as to my feelings concerning the benefits and faults of a NAU. It may very well be a good move for all three nations. A secure border, free trade, free movement of populations?

The cabinet departments constantly make policies which are in essence law. This power is abdicated by congress because this insulates them from reprisal from their constituents. It is a win, win.

 

[Tomblvd]

No laws exactly. This is the beauty of bureaucracies, they enact policy.

OK, then what policies will they enact???

Hillary, was it not her husband that set the ball rolling?

I asked what candidates support usurping Congress and enacting the stealth NAU.

Now you are thinking! Nothing could stop congress from de-funding most anything the executive does. Of course congress could de-fund the war. Now the question becomes: Why did the Dems run on stopping the war during the mid-term elections and not stop the war after winning?

You didn't answer my question. This is really getting silly.

All I can tell you is how the SPP agreement; of which the executives of three nations were the parties, tells us it is to be implemented.

And what, EXACTLY, does that say?

The SPP stated that it will be implemented slowly through the bureaucracies under the control of the executive.

No, it says that any recommendations will be addressed through the proper Cabinet departments. That includes Congressional oversight:

If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

Jerome, are you finally going to make a good faith effort to answer these questions, or are you going to continue this juvenille "gotcha"?

 

[Tomblvd]

The cabinet departments constantly make policies which are in essence law.

Examples please?

This power is abdicated by congress because this insulates them from reprisal from their constituents. It is a win, win.

In order for this to occur then, you are admitting that Congress will have to take specific action, abdication, which invalidates your "stealth" hypothesis.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

OK, then what policies will they enact???

Policies that are stated in the SPP.

Have you read the SPP web site? or are you wanting me to find for you what I have already read?

I asked what candidates support usurping Congress and enacting the stealth NAU.

I answered. When Hillary wins you will have this conversation in the back of your mind.

You didn't answer my question. This is really getting silly.

I answered your question. Congress can de-fund almost anything the executive does.

And what, EXACTLY, does that say?

You can find EXACTLY what it says on the web-site SPP.org.

In general it is the melding of the regulations of the three nations concerning everything from health to transportation to trade to immigration to security.

No, it says that any recommendations will be addressed through the proper Cabinet departments. That includes Congressional oversight:

Are you under the impression that congress reviews the policies of the cabinets in a complete or consistent way?

I live in DC, and the majority of my friends and acquaintances work for the Federal government, this is not how government works.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Examples please?

EPA Laws and Regulations

In order for this to occur then, you are admitting that Congress will have to take specific action, abdication, which invalidates your "stealth" hypothesis.

Congress has already abdicated its authority. That was the point with the declaration of war example. All congress has to do is nothing, and if a congress person speaks out against what is happening they are pasted with the label of loony conspiracy theorist.

 

[Tomblvd]

Jerome, I politely asked you for some idea as to how the president would implement a stealth surrender of our sovreignty to Mexico and Canada, and all I've gotten is complete evasion. It is plainly apparent you have no idea what you are talking about.

Honestly, if you can't answer these simple, straightforward questions, why should we believe you?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And now Jerome is doing what we call "making **** up". Thank you for sharing your fantasies of what you think will happen in your fantasy. This does not change the fact that Jerome has not provided a single piece of evidence to any of this nonsense.

Of course jermone points to the SPP web site as evidence. but when that proves him wrong, he simply dismisses it as them hiding the stuff that proves his claims. This is worse than the arguments made by Lisabob or Lastchild.

 

[twinstead]

It appears that the only way you will see that you are wrong, jerome, is when the NAU doesn't come to pass. I don't have to convince you of anything.

Let's just wait and see what happens. One of us will be right. Let's see who.

 

[twinstead]

This is worse than the arguments made by Lisabob or Lastchild.

Wow. That's pretty hard to do.