On January 17, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the United States of America, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Western Europe during WW II, military commander of NATO, and President of Columbia University, after forty-six years of public service, presented to the Nation his farewell address as its President. In this address President Eisenhower stated that the basic purpose of our government is to keep the peace, foster progress in human achievement, and enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. However, at the time, President Eisenhower was concerned that there were forces at work in the Nation, in contradiction to these noble goals. To warn the American people about the nature of these forces President Eisenhower stated, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

President Eisenhower, although justified in his concerns, was short-sighted in describing them. The real threat to liberty and democracy in America, at the time, was not the military-industrial complex, but more accurately something far more reaching; the corporate-governmental complex or more appropriately described, the union of government and corporate forces to an extent where corporate influence is the dominant force in American politics at the expense of the Nation and its citizens. This was the real threat that existed as President Eisenhower spoke and this threat has achieved it goals and purposes to such an extent that our Nation is, at present, being torn between those still blindly loyal to what was our government and those all too aware of what is happening.

The fundamental concept adhered to by our founding fathers in drafting our Constitution was that our government would be a government of the people, by the people and for the people. At the time, large corporations did not exist. The only institutions of significance around were the people, the government, and the press. The press, served as a source of information for the people and a watchdog of government. The Constitution was drafted in keeping with these political realities and served the Nation well for almost 200 years. The problem we now face today is that the situation is such that multinational corporations, through wealth and wealth asso-ciated influence, are able to control most governments of the World, including ours. Our founding fathers never envisioned or considered the rise of corporations as a political force in the World and the fact that they would grow so large that their power and influence would exceed that of governments and transcend national boundaries.

Is this really true? Truth is a matter of perception, but these perceptions are validated over and over again by the actions of the Federal Government and its officials. For example, prior to the enactment of NAFTA, when asked about the loss of U.S, sovereignty under NAFTA, President Clinton responded, "If we're going to ask Mexico to give up a little sovereignty, why shouldn't we give up a little too?" These words spoken by President Clinton are both shocking and revealing. First of all, the sovereignty of our Nation belongs to its people. The President of the United States, more than any other individual, is duty bound to protect it at all costs. Instead, he believes that he can barter it away like a loaf of bread or some other commodity. The concept that sovereignty can be bartered and traded like a commodity is one that serves only the interests and purposes of multi-national corporations at the expense of the people of this Nation. A president who maintains he has authority to barter away our sovereignty and does so, is not working in our best interests, but subscribing to the agenda of multinational corporations.

On April 8, 1996, on the first page of The New-Journal from Daytona Beach, Florida, an article appeared under the headline: "U.S. balks at signing anti-corruption pact". This article starts out by explaining how corporate executives and government officials with overseas assignments have snickered at our efforts to eliminate bribery and corruption in inter-national business. The article goes on to explain that twenty-one member nations of the Organization of American States, recently signed a treaty to crack down on such shady practices, but the United States of America, declined to join them because the Justice Department has reservations about the constitutionality of the treaty's provisions. Specifically, it takes issue with the requirement to make it a crime for a government official to acquire assets, "that he cannot reasonably explain in relation to his lawful earnings during the performance of his functions". The Justice Department objects to this requirement because it appears to shift the burden of proof from the government to the suspect, contrary to U.S. Constitutional requirements.

When an individual is hired into the Public Service or elected to public office, the public is placing in that person a special trust; to no longer think and act to benefit ones self, but rather think and act only for the common good. If a person holding public office or working for the government acquires assets beyond those he is able to obtain through his lawful earnings, then clearly he has violated the public trust and having done so, should forfeit all assets so gained including the lawful earnings associated with the office or position he held. This latter requirement, at first, may seem extreme, but is it? After all, if when working for the public, I instead work for myself, am I not taking the salary I was paid under false pretenses?

Apparently the Justice Department doesn't think so and instead maintains that the Constitution precludes those serving the public from being accountable. How ironic that a document who's prime purposes are to protect the people from government and make it accountable, is used by the Justice Department to ensure that government employees are not accountable. How did this absurdity come to pass? Perhaps, if the situation was such that government employees could not unlawfully enrich themselves, then the reach of multinational corporations into government would be reduced. More specifically, how could multinational corporations maintain control of the World Trade Organization, if ways of illegally enriching delegates is eliminated? Is the Justice Department of the United States of America subscribing to the hidden agenda of multi-national corporations? If not intentionally, they certainly seem to be doing so inadvertently.

During the NAFTA debate, a Congressional Representative stood up and declared that the business of America is business. This may be true for the private sector. However, the business of government is not business. The business of government is governing. Business and governing do not mix well because the prime purpose of government is ensure that the playing field is level for everyone. On the other hand, the primary goal of a business is to gain advantage on competitors. When government and business mix, the result is bad business and very bad government. When this occurs, the rich and powerful win and the losers are small businesses and citizens.

******

In November 1994, the house of representatives passed GATT. Until this point, I did not believe that the passage of an agreement of this nature was possible. However, when the House of Representatives passed GATT, I woke up and wrote the following letter to the Editor of Newsweek Magazine.

The United States of America is a sovereign nation and as such is autonomous and free of external control. Under GATT, trade disagreements would be subject to binding arbitration with the World Trade Organization being the arbitrator. In other words, in matters of world trade, under GATT, the United States of America will have lost its sovereignty.

No government official has the right or authority to place this Nation, its Constitution, and its people subservient to any other governing body or authority and anyone that does so is selling out democracy and committing an act of treason.

******

After writing this letter, I wrote an open letter to the President, Congress, and People of the United States of America.

December 1, 1994, is a day that will live in infamy because on that day Congress wrongfully and illegally enacted as United States Law, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). As a result, Congress has invalidated our Constitution, reduced our Nation to less than sovereign status, violated the democratic principles we hold dear, and sold out the people of America. Furthermore, Senators and Representatives that voted for GATT, did so in contradiction and violation of their Pledge of Allegiance.

Under GATT, trade disagreements involving United States Law are subject to binding arbitration with the World Trade Organization (WTO) being the arbitrator. In other words, in matters of world trade, the WTO is sovereign to the United States and that organization has veto power over the actions of Congress. The World Trade Organization is not a democratic institution. Its member states include dictatorships and communist nations each having one vote equal to the one held by the us. Therefore, under GATT, communists and dictators, acting in consort, have the power to override United States Law.

The Constitution of the United States of America states that all legislative Powers shall be vested in Congress and that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign Nations. Under GATT, this is no longer true because Congress is now subservient to the WTO in matters regulating commerce with foreign Nations. Therefore, the Congressional vote for GATT is illegal because it is in violation of our Constitution's provisions. The changes wrought by GATT must be made by constitutional amendment and not a simple vote of Congress.

Our pledge of allegiance states that we "pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands". Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language defines "Republic" as "a state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all citizens entitled to vote". The member nations of the WTO are not citizens of the United States and they certainly are not entitled to vote in our elections. Despite this, Congress has voted to give the WTO veto power over our laws. This being so, the democratic principles that underpin our government have been compromised and this Nation is no longer a "Republic". Therefore, the individuals responsible for this state of affairs have violated their pledge of allegiance to our Nation and citizens.

In my opinion, the flag of the United States of America should no longer be displayed in the halls of Congress and instead, should be replaced by a World Trade organization banner. I further propose that this banner be green with a large black dollar sign displayed within its center. This WTO banner will require a new "Pledge of Allegiance" and I propose that Congress, in honesty and candor, adopt the following:

I pledge allegiance to the banner of the World Trade organization
and to the Money for which it stands,
gleaned from many Nations,
subjugated,
with liberty and justice for the rich and powerful.

May God help us and forgive our Congressional Representatives. Their actions have made a mockery of our democratic way of life and ensured that all veterans who have the paid the ultimate price in the service of their country, have died in vain.

******

Congressman Peter Deutsch responded to my open letter as follows.

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office regarding the Uruguay Round of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I appreciate your interest in GATT and respect your position.

The Uruguay Round of the GATT, signed on December 15, 1993 by the United States with 116 other countries, is the result of seven years of bipartisan cooperation and has been negotiated under the stewardship of three successive U.S. Administrations. The intent was to level the playing field of international trade by creating a more fair, comprehensive, and enforceable set of world trade rules. In order to accomplish this goal, a new World Trade Organization (WTO) was created.

Although some say that the WTO compromises U.S. sovereignty, I reject that notion. Only the U.S. Congress has the authority to change U.S. law. Both parties have worked to ensure that Congress retains its legitimate authority by monitoring the evolution of the WTO and protecting the interests of the U.S. The President and Senator Dole, have agreed to support a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission comprised of five Federal appellate judges who would review all adopted WTO panel reports which are adverse to the U.S. If the Commission determines that the panel has decided unfairly, any Member of Congress could call on the President to negotiate a solution in the WTO. If three determinations are made within any five year period, any Member of Congress could introduce legislation to end US participation in the WTO.

Now is the time for the United States to take leadership in international trade. The U.S. negotiators engaged in this laborious effort to reach an agreement that would prepare the American economy for the rigors of competition in the global market. The U.S. economy overall will gain tremendously by opening markets abroad because the U.S. is open to other countries' imports while other nations have a long history of blocking the importation of foreign goods through high tariffs. The most conservative estimates show that GATT will add revenue to the U.S. GDP of around $100 billion a year after implementation.

Florida in particular stands to gain from GATT. As the eighth-leading exporter of merchandise, Florida's exports nearly doubled from $7 billion to $14.7 billion between 1987 and 1993. The South Florida region recorded 1993 export sales of over $9.5 billion; almost two-thirds the state total. GATT should benefit South Florida's economy through increased exports of goods to other nations. South Florida is a winner under GATT.

Again, thank you for sharing your views. Please contact my office should any further issues or concerns arise.

******

I responded to Representative Deutsch as follows.

The most disturbing aspect of the Congressional vote for GATT is that Congress does not recognize the serious implications of the situation we now find ourselves in. Approximately 200 years ago, the American Revolution gave birth to a new nation unlike any other in history. The auspicious beginning of the great and noble experiment that was the United States of America began with a shout and report heard around the world and now, in a lame duck session of Congress, the experiment has ended with hardly a whimper.

You say you reject the notion that the WTO compromises U.S. sovereignty for essentially the following reasons:

1. Congress retains the power to change U.S. law under GATT.

2. Both political parties have worked to ensure that Congress retains its legitimate authority under the Constitution.

3. Mechanisms have been developed to protect U.S. interests under GATT.

4. The option to end our participation in GATT precludes having given up our sovereignty.

Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines sovereignty as, "having supreme power free of external control". Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language defines sovereignty as "being supreme in power, rank, or authority independent of all others". Under GATT, despite the efforts of both political parties, despite the existence of a Settlement Review Commission, despite the provision that if the WTO Panel decides unfairly the President may negotiate a solution, and despite the provision that Congress has the option of ending our participation in the WTO, the indisputable fact remains that the United States of America is no longer a supreme power independent of all others and free of external control. Under GATT, we are not sovereign in matters of world trade and if we are not sovereign in world trade, then we are not sovereign.

These truths are self-evident and thus the Congressional vote for GATT was an earth shaking development. Congress, on the other hand, treated the sovereignty issue as an insignificant rider on a trade bill. This is disturbing and highly suspicious. An issue of this import requires far more attention than it was given and most Congressmen being attorneys know this. The democratic principles that underpin our Nation have been compromised by a simple vote of Congress for a claimed gain of $100 billion to our GDP. Is this the price of our Republic and democratic heritage?

The obvious truth of the matter is that under GATT, the United States of America has lost its sovereignty and is no longer a republic. Therefore, the vote for GATT was illegal and unconstitutional. Issues of sovereignty can only be addressed by Constitutional amendment.

I sincerely hope that Congress recognizes the mistake it has made and properly revisits the sovereignty issue raised by GATT as provided for in Article V of our Constitution.

******

Senator Bob Graham responded to my open letter as follows.

Thank you for contacting my office regarding international trade.

In June 1993, Congress cleared legislation extending President Clinton's authority to negotiate a treaty strengthening the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Negotiators from 117 countries reached a consensus in the Uruguay Round of the GATT on December 15. On April 15, 1994, U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor signed the GATT agreement in Marrakesh, Morocco, on behalf of President Clinton.

The latest GATT negotiations are aimed at expanding trade among the participating nations by reducing tariffs and ensuring market-access commitments. These actions will help spur worldwide economic growth, increase employment, and minimize protectionism.

On November 30 and December 1, the Congress reconvened in a special session to debate and vote on the GATT. The Senate approved the GATT with my support, 76-24, on December 1, 1994. The United States has proven that it will continue to provide global leadership in terms of an open, effective, competitive market system that provides expanded opportunities for people throughout the world.

I appreciate knowing your views on this important matter and will keep them in mind should the Senate revisit any related issues.

******
Representative Connie Mack responded to my open letter as follows.

It was good to hear from you regarding the Uruguay Round of the GATT trade negotiations. I appreciate hearing your concerns.

Many GATT countries provide heavy government subsidies and impose significant tariffs. These trade practices hurt American jobs, and we should explore all opportunities to break down these trade barriers. The American worker is the most productive worker in the world, and has always excelled on a level playing field. Certainly, the United States should only enter into this agreement if it enhances America's competitiveness and serves our national interests.

I have several concerns about this agreement, one of which is the World Trade Organization (WTO). According to the Uruguay Round agreements, the WTO would administer global trading rules and settle disputes among member nations. The United States played an important role in negotiating these provisions; yet some still express uncertainty about how WTO decisions might affect the United States. Although the GATT implementing legislation makes it clear that the United States maintains full authority to establish, amend or change its own federal and state laws, Congress must approach this issue cautiously and with careful analysis.

Be assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind. When the agreement comes before the Senate for ratification, it will have my support only if it's in the best interest of the United States and of Florida.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue. Knowing how you feel on key issues helps me better represent Florida in the United States Senate.

******

Vice-President Al Gore responded to my open letter as follows.

Thank you for writing to me to express your concerns about the new Genera Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization (WTO). I appreciate your interest in this important issue.

As you know, on December 15, 1993, this country successfully concluded negotiations with more than 110 other nations on the most comprehensive trade agreement in history. This agreement, by eliminating barriers to American goods and services around the world, will mean new jobs, higher incomes for American workers, and a strengthened position of leadership for our nation in the global economy.

The criticisms raised against this important agreement and, specifically, the establishment of the WTO, are unfounded. Contrary to critics of this specific aspect of the agreement, the WTO does not affect the sovereignty of the United States to pass its own laws, to enforce existing laws or to set its own strong environmental, safety, or health standards. This authority remains firmly vested in the United States Congress. In fact, our sovereignty is enhanced, because a substantially improved and more effective dispute settlement system will permit us to enforce rights under the GATT more effectively.

The new dispute settlement process under the WTO includes effective measures for containing subsidies and for dealing with abuses of anti-dumping provisions. For example, under the previous terms of GATT, when the United States won cases, it was very difficult to reap the benefits. Other countries regularly blocked adoption of reports which they deemed adverse to their interests. The new agreement will, for the first time, permit sanctions for failures to implement panel recommendations. Because the United States brings more cases to the world body than any other country, we will be the biggest beneficiaries-of this agreement.

Finally, the WTO not only continues, but strengthens the process of operating by consensus rather than by majority vote. No substantive changes in the rights and obligations of the United States can occur under any of the WTO's provisions unless the United States agrees.

This Administration is committed to continuing the process of opening markets abroad for American goods and services under this new agreement. With the recent approval of the GATT by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of the Congress, we have ensured America's active participation in a thriving global economy.

******
I responded to Vice-President Gore as follows.

I acknowledge receipt of' your identical letters of December 13 and 17, 1994, in response to my letters of November 30 and December 5. 1994. I am forced to conclude that you have not read this staff written form letter because if you had, I am sure you would have not allowed it to be mailed. The letter is the epitome of deception and sophistry and the author is not qualified to hold public office much less be Vice President of the United States of America.

From this point, I will write under the assumption that you wrote the letter in question, even though I am sure you did not.

In your letter you maintain that:

1. The elimination of' trade barriers around the world will result in higher pay for American workers.

2. Our participation in GATT will result in a strengthened position of' leadership for our Nation in World Trade.

3. Under GATT and the World Trade Organization, our sovereignty is enhanced.

4. The GATT agreement, for the first time, will permit sanctions for failures to implement panel recommendations.

In 1949 George Orwell wrote "1984" and in that year many of us were amused that his predictions had not come to pass. How ironic that just ten years later, the Vice-President of' the United States of' America would resort to classic Orwellian logic to justify a trade bill that is the death knell of' our republican democracy and the onset of a world oligarchy of wealth where the rich and powerful reign Supreme.

I understand that the United States his one vote in the WTO equal to every other member nation with no unconditional right to veto WTO rulings. You confirm this in statement #4, when You point out that GATT will permit sanctions for a nation's failure to implement WTO panel
recommendations. This being so, how is it possible for you to maintain in statement #3 the sovereignty of our Nation is enhanced. Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language defines sovereignty as "being supreme in power, rank, or authority, independent of' all others". If the WTO can impose sanctions on nations that fail to implement its recommendations, then by definition, the WTO is sovereign over its member nations. To deny this truth, a new definition of sovereignty is required. Perhaps Mr. Orwell can help you in this regard.

If under GATT, we have one vote in the WTO without the option of an unconditional veto, how can you maintain in statement #2 that our position of leadership in world trade is strengthened? It logically follows that if a nation joins an organization with the power to impose sanctions upon its members, then "leadership" has been surrendered to that organization. A sanction is a strong tool for providing direction and whoever provides direction is the leader. Under GATT, as a member of the World Trade Organization, we are just one of the crowd in an organization where a majority of the membership view us as a nation that has had too much for too long. It is doubtful that we will be an effective leader in such an environment.

The standard of living of the American worker is among the highest in the World. In contrast the vast majority of the World's workers are virtual slaves to their employers; earning barely enough to provide their families with the essentials of life. If all tariffs and barriers to trade are lifted, the American worker will be in level competition with the low paid workers of the 3rd World who greatly outnumber him. This being so, logic and basic economics tell us that the tendency will be for the American worker to be pulled down to the salary level of the 3rd World worker and not the other way around. To maintain that this situation is to the benefit of American workers and thus our Nation is shear sophistry. George Orwell wrote that "War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", and "Ignorance is Strength". Now you and our Congressional leadership have added to these Orwellian truths that "Less is More".

In his inaugural address, Abraham Lincoln stated that if we "Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, the Union will endure forever it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself". It should be obvious to any informed individual that not only was the vote for GATT not provided for in our Constitution but worse, the GATT vote grievously violated several Constitutional provisions to such a degree that the Constitution has been rendered dysfunctional.

Historically, our government is unique to the World because it was founded unequivocally upon the rule of law; the primary instrument of which is our Constitution. This being so, the legitimacy and validity of our government is contingent upon the principals of governing embraced by our Constitution and faithfully following its precepts. This is especially true in regard to the limits and balance of powers granted to the government's Executive, Judicial and Legislative branches.

The principles embodied within our Constitution are best expressed by our Declaration of Independence which states that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among those are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers front the consent of the governed."

Therefore, according to the Declaration of Independence, citizens have inalienable rights that no government can legitimately take away and government rules by consent of the governed within the limits and constraints established by them. These two fundamental principals of American republican democracy enshrined within our Constitution guarantee our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without them our ship of state is rudderless, adrift upon an uncharted sea and we at the mercy of tyrants.

Keeping the above principals in mind, our founding fathers drafted the Constitution and wrote its preamble which reads:

"We the People of' the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish ,justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to our selves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America."

Our founding fathers went on to provide that all legislative powers granted by the Constitution will be vested in the Congress of the United States and that judicial power shall be vested in the Supreme Court whose authority shall extend to all cases in law and equity including controversies between a State or its citizens and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly establish that the government of the United States derives its power from the will and consent of' its people. Our Constitution states that Congress shall establish the laws we live under subject to review of the Supreme Court which is also supreme authority in disputes involving foreign nations. The Constitution does not give Congress authority to subject our laws to review or censure by any other governing body especially an undemocratic and foreign one such as the World Trade Organization. Furthermore, the separation of powers established by the Constitution preclude Congress from placing the ruling panels of the World Trade Organization superior to the Supreme Court of the United States. It is beyond comprehension that the United States Congress has usurped the authority and powers of the Judicial branch of our government and surrendered this authority and power to an external foreign organization through a simple vote on a trade bill.

On September 19, 1796, the Father of our Nation, President George Washington, in his farewell address to the American people said, "Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of' the most baneful foes of republican government. The Great Rule of' conduct for us in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have them as little political connection as possible." The 103rd Congress of' the United States has not only ignored George Washington's advice, but compounded this mistake by surrendering to foreign control. It is highly ironic that this illegal and oligarcal state of' affairs has been brought about by two national parties which call themselves Republican and Democrat.

In consideration of' the fundamental principles that underpin our republican democracy, it is clear that the 103rd Congress by enacting GATT in a fast-tracked lame duck session, has overstepped the authority given to it by the American people as provided for in our Constitution and therefore, has acted contrary to the will of' the American people. Furthermore, these actions have violated the underlying principles and structure of' our Government to such a degree that the Constitution has been rendered an ineffectual scrap of' paper, without validity or substance. This constitutes a change in our system of government and a surrender of the American people to foreign control.

I have provided you with my perceptions on GATT and the World Trade Organization. I am human and therefore, fallible. Not only may I be wrong about these issues, but I fervently wish I were wrong. However, the more I dwell on these matters, the more I am convinced I am right. Therefore, Mr. Vice-President, I beseech you and your cohorts in Congress who voted for GATT to explain to me and my fellow Americans why I am wrong.

******

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen responded to my open letter as follows. Her letter was a refreshing change from the ones received thus far.

Thank you for contacting my office to oppose the implementing legislation for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), H.R. 5110.

I agree with you.

I opposed this legislation based on a broad range of concerns including its impact on our
manufacturing jobs, state and local sovereignty, our health and safety laws, and our environmental protection laws.

I am concerned that GATT will set up an international super government known as the World Trade organization (WTO) to enforce this agreement which is dominated by nations which have voted against U.S. interests in the United Nations. Two-thirds of WTO members voted at least half of the time against the U.S. in the U.N. during 1993.

But unlike the United Nations, where the United States has veto power in the Security Council, the United States will have the same voting power as Cuba, or Sri Lanka, or Macao. In other words, Castro's vote cancels out our own vote. The U.S. would have only one vote out of 123 nations while paying up to 20 per cent of the costs of the WTO.

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to let me know your concerns on this important issue.

******

Representative Bill McCollum responded to my open letter as follows:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the General Agreement On Tariffs and Trade (GATT).

As you are no doubt aware, the GATT Agreement passed the House of Representatives by 288 to 146 and the Senate by a margin of 76 to 24 and has been signed by the President. As you may also be aware, I voted in favor of approving this agreement.

In my judgment, as with NAFTA, the GATT Agreement will be of great benefit to the economy of the United States and a net job producer for Americans. By lowering tariffs and other trade barriers which currently impede the export of may goods produced in the United States, the GATT Agreement will create more jobs at home. Since we have lower tariffs and fewer trade barriers to most foreign made goods than other countries have to our goods, GATT should be very favorable to the United States.

The major concern expressed by those opposing GATT centered on the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the possible implications for the sovereignty of the United States under the dispute resolution provisions of the WTO. I carefully examined the agreement and the implementing provisions regarding this matter and found the concerns expressed about the WTO and the dispute resolution process to be generally unfounded.

Under the old GATT if the United States violated the conditions and terms of the agreement, the country offended by this could unilaterally take retaliatory trade action against the United States by raising its tariffs on some products that we export to that country or refusing some products that we export or whatever. Under the new GATT and the WTO the same is still true; however, there is a dispute resolution organization which is designed to issue advisory opinions as to who is right or wrong in a claimed violation. This dispute body is much like an arbitration panel which will hear both sides of an argument that the United States (or another country) has violated the agreement. If this WTO dispute panel determines that there has been a violation an advisory opinion or ruling will be issued but it has no practical weight or effect. There are no fines or
penalties that the United States or another country in violation will have to pay. The country found in violation of the agreement is supposed to work out a settlement with the offended (injured) country within a short time period, but there are no sanctions for not doing so. If no settlement is reached between the disputing countries, the country that has been offended by the violation may, just as it could under the old rules, raise tariffs or take other trade sanctions against the offending country. In most cases this does not mean anything and does not happen.

Some have suggested that decisions of the dispute settlement body of the WTO would force states of the United States to change their laws. This is simply not so. There is no breach of the United States sovereignty involved at all in any of this since none of it is binding in any way. Of course, Congress could at any time decide to adjust laws of the United States if a majority of the House and Senate concluded that such changes were in the best interest of our nation, but this would take a separate debate and vote on a new piece of legislation addressing whatever problem might be deemed to be interfering with some trade relationship. This could have occurred under the rules that have existed all along in GATT or from bilateral trade relationships in the past between our nation and others long before any GATT existed.

There are some provisions passed by the Senate in the implementing language for GATT with which I do not agree. These were not, however, part of the agreement itself and can be changed at a future date by a vote of the U.S. House and Senate without any effect on our trade relationships or this agreement. I hope that such legislative changes are initiated in the new Congress, and I will be fully supportive of them should this be the case. None of these implementing provisions were so egregious that I thought a vote against GATT was warranted (especially since a no vote on GATT may have doomed it from ever being ratified).

Again, thank you for contacting me to express your concerns with respect to GATT. I greatly appreciate your interest and hope that you will contact me on other matters of interest to you in the future.

******

Senator Bob Graham wrote me a second time about my open letter as follows:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding international trade.

In December 1993, negotiators from 117 countries reached a consensus on the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). On November 29 and December 1, 1994, the Congress reconvened in a special session to debate and vote on GATT. The Senate approved the GATT with my support, 76-24, on December 1. The Uruguay Round will reduce tariffs and create a more enforceable set of world trade rules.

Included in the Uruguay Round Agreements is a provision which establishes the World Trade Organization (WTO). Under the previous GATT agreement there was no simple way to settle disagreements. The WTO will provide a streamlined process of settling disputes between member nations, ensuring that U.S. companies and workers will be able to compete fairly with the rest of the world.

Some Floridians have contacted my office to express their concerns that the WTO might infringe upon U.S. or state law. U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor, has assured Congress that the WTO will have no power to overturn state or federal law. Any decision to amend U.S. law will remain ours alone to make.

Furthermore, the Clinton Administration is expected to support legislation next year to establish a WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission. This commission would consist of five federal appellate judges, who would review all decisions adverse to the U.S. to determine whether the WTO exceeded its authority.

I appreciate knowing your concerns on this important matter and will keep them in mind should the Senate revisit any related issues.

******

Senator Connie Mack responded to my open letter as follows.

Thank you for your letter about the Uruguay Round of GATT trade negotiations. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, GATT was approved by the Congress and signed into law on December 8, 1994. I voted for the agreement because it enhances America's competitiveness and assures continued economic growth. This agreement encourages free trade around the world which I firmly believe promotes democracy.

Not only is GATT good for America, but it clearly benefits Florida with lower tariffs for our exports. GATT will create opportunities by stimulating the development of new jobs and new businesses throughout our state. I am convinced that this agreement is in the best interest of the United States and of Florida.

Again, thank you for contacting me about this important issue.

******

Representative Martin T. Meehan responded to my open letter as follows.

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on the World Trade Organization (WTO). I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I am sure you are aware that I voted for the GATT agreement when it came before Congress last November. The GATT accord is expected to generate more than $200 million dollars in added revenue over the next ten years. Increased international trade is one of the major engines driving U.S. economic growth, and I am certain that this GATT agreement will advance American economic interests.

Before voting for the GATT, I studied the implications of the new WTO, an organization intended to help resolve tariff disagreements among countries with Most Favored Nation (MFN) status. Under previous trade law, when the United States accused another country of "dumping" goods in our markets or subsidizing its exports to gain competitive advantage over our products, we had no means of enforcing compliance with fair trade rules. As I understand it, the WTO gives us the authority to punish countries in violation of an order to stop unfair dumping or offset government subsidies.

Several amendments to the legislation passed along with the GATT agreement last November were added to address concerns about the WTO's effect on U.S. sovereignty. These amendments seek to ensure that WTO panel appointees are well-qualified and unbiased experts, that the president is kept informed of any changes to WTO panels, and that written complaints to be resolved by the WTO be published in the Federal Register. The implementing legislation also included provisions to preserve our federal and state environmental safeguards. The changes firmly establish the preeminence of our state and national environmental standards over international trade rulings by the WTO.

I will continue to weigh the evidence carefully in the coming months. I am aware of the arguments that some critics have made regarding the impact of the WTO on our country's sovereignty. However, the changes made in Morocco and the amendments to the implementing legislation prevent GATT rules from overriding American law, and our government's authority remains notwithstanding the WTO.

Again, thank you for taking the time to get in touch. I will take your views into consideration as the debate on the GATT continues.

******

I responded to Representative Meehan's letter as follows.

Since enactment, I have been writing government officials concerning the constitutionality of the congressional vote for GATT and our participation in the World Trade Organization. I have not received a response that mitigates my concerns, identifies flaws in my reasoning, or demonstrated that any of my conclusions are in error. Unfortunately, this is also true for your recently received August 15th letter which I found deceptive and logically flawed. If your letter is the best justification you can muster for voting for GATT, then this is truly sobering.

You maintain In your letter that:

1. The GATT accord will advance American economic Interests.

2. Under previous trade law, we had no means of enforcing compliance with fair trade rules.

3. The WTO gives us the authority to punish countries not complying with fair trade rules.

4. Amendments passed with GATT address sovereignty concerns by:

a) Ensuring WTO panel appointees are well qualified.

b) Ensuring the President is informed about changes to WTO panels.

c) Establishing preeminence of our federal and state environmental safeguards over GATT rulings.

In regard to item #1.

I assume your conclusion that GATT will advance American economic interests results from reasoning similar to that used to conclude NAFTA would advance American economic interests. This line of reasoning, proven flawed for NAFTA, is also flawed for GATT. To wit; a level playing field where American workers compete against the World's peasantry, while beneficial to multi-national corporations, is not in the best interest of the American worker or this Nation. This truth, obvious to most Americans, seems to escape GATT supporters.

In regard to item #2.

It is not true that we had no way of ensuring fair trade before GATT. Among other things, we could refuse to trade with nations that did not trade fairly, levy tariffs to protect at risk industries, and extend or withhold Most Favored Nation status as an inducement to responsible behavior. Under GATT, any action taken against a wayward trading partner can be reversed by a WTO ruling. How anyone can construe this situation to be to our advantage is beyond the comprehension of anybody but a GATT supporter.

In regard to item #3.

Your assertion that GATT gives as authority to punish countries not complying with fair trade rules focuses upon the very heart of my concerns about GATT and the WTO. I am appalled that GATT supporters fail to comprehend the dire implications evident here. As a sovereign nation, no one gives us authority for anything. To be sovereign means you are the authority. To acknowledge an organization exists which gives us authority, means you acknowledge being subservient to that organization. Your own words have confirmed that by voting for GATT, Congress has surrendered its authority and the authority of the Supreme Court to an external foreign organization.

In regard to item #4.

Your statement that amendments passed with GATT address the WTO's effect on our sovereignty, clearly demonstrate your lack of knowledge about GATT and your inability to understand the concept of sovereignty. Ensuring that GATT panel appointees are wall qualified and that the President is informed about changes to WTO panels does nothing to address issues of sovereignty. Furthermore, Article XVI, paragraph 5, of the GATT agreement states, no reservations may be made in respect to any provisions of this Agreement. This being so, amendments passed by Congress will not, as you maintain, establish the preeminence of state and national environmental standards over GATT rulings. The bylaws of the WTO preclude us from passing laws that limit its authority over United States law.

I am at a loss to understand why GATT supporters are so enamored about the concept of "fair trade", that they are willing to sacrifice the sovereignty of our Nation to achieve it. What is fair trade? From my perspective, trade is fair when both parties trade of their own free will without deception. Do we need a World Trade Organization to achieve this? Whatever happened to the concept of free trade. How free will trade be when it is controlled by a bunch of faceless bureaucrats meeting in secret behind closed doors? If this setup is your conception of what is best for the United States and the rest of the World, I think you should reassess your commitment to the concepts of freedom and democracy.

As a Congressman you swear to uphold and defend our Constitution. Your vote for GATT abridged the voting rights of Americans and subordinated Congress and the Supreme Court to the ruling panels of the World Trade Organization in flagrant and gross violation of the provisions of our Constitution. Arguments to the contrary offered to date by Congress and the office of the Vice-President are, without exception, flawed and trivial. This being so, assuming Congress and the White house are not peopled by mental deficients, one is left with the conclusion that a hidden agenda is at play. That being the ease, it follows that our Government is engaged in a deception of the people they are pledged to serve and protect.

I fear for my Nation and its people. I am also appalled we paid you so well to do this to us.

******

Representative Meehan forwarded my letter to him to Representative Alcee L. Hastings, the Congressional Representative from my home District and he wrote me as follows.

Your letter to Congressman Meehan regarding GATT was forwarded to me because you live in Florida's 23rd district, which I represent. I welcome the opportunity to respond.

You will be pleased to learn that I did not support the GATT agreement. I voted against the treaty because of my concern for the security of American laborers and American businesses. I do not, however, agree with you that joining the World Trade organization is a violation of the Constitution.

Thank you for contacting me to express your position. If I may be of assistance to you in the future please do not hesitate to contact me.

******

It was gratifying to know that Representative Hastings welcomed the opportunity to respond to my letter to Representative Meehan. The only problem was he did not provide much of a response. Because of this, wrote back as follows.

Thank you for your response to my letter to Congressman Meehan and offering to be of assistance to me in the future. I am desperately in need of assistance at this time.

I am gratified that you did not vote for GATT but am perplexed by your belief that our joining the World Trade Organization does not violate provisions of the Constitution. From my perspective, the Constitution has been so clearly and grievously violated that anyone knowledgeable about the facts of the situation could not, in good conscience, conclude otherwise. You are a lawyer, former judge, and my Congressional representative. This being so, you may be the best person to help me and my fellow Americans out of the dilemma we now find ourselves in.

I hold an undergraduate degree in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Michigan and an MBA from Long Island University. I am an honorably discharged veteran who served his country as a Navy Fighter Pilot. Presently, I am a Public Servant who takes his responsibilities seriously and in the course of my duties, drafts ordinances for consideration and enactment. In other words, I am an educated and well-read person, conservative in outlook, who loves his country dearly, but who is also deeply troubled by legal implications and precedents established by the GATT accord. My feelings in this matter are so deep and strong that I have a hard time not seeing GATT supporters as violators of their oath of office and their pledge of allegiance to this Nation. I do not want to believe these things because they leave me troubled and upset, but no government official has responded to my concerns in a reasonable and intelligent manner. The official position seems to be, your wrong because we say you are wrong and we know best because we are the government. Therefore, be quiet and don't ask any more questions.

I will not be quiet because I believe I am right and cannot convince myself otherwise. Further-more, I cannot accept a government that does not answer to the people of this Nation no matter how big and strong that government thinks it is. I am writing as a concerned citizen on behalf of all the people of this Nation and that makes me bigger and stronger than any government. This truth is what America is about.

My perceptions are that the GATT accord is unconstitutional because:

1. Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with foreign Nations.

The GATT accord surrenders the power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign Nations to the Ruling Panels of the World Trade Organization.

2. Article 19, Section 2, of the Constitution states that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution including controversies to which the United States shall be a party, treaties made or which shall be made, and controversies between a State and foreign states.

The GATT accord surrenders the judicial power of the Supreme Court, in these matters, to the Ruling Panels of the World Traded Organization.

3. Amendment XV, Section 1, states that our right to vote shall not be abridged.

When we vote, we determine who will represent us in Congress and establish the rules and laws we live by. The GATT accord subordinates Congress and the Supreme Court to the Ruling Panels of the WTO as described above. Therefore, in matters of world trade, we no longer vote for the people who establish the laws we live under and thus our voting rights have been abridged.

If the words above accurately portray the situation that presently exists in regard to our Constitution and the GATT accord, as I believe they do, then anyone should see that the GATT accord is unconstitutional. Thus the basis of my dilemma. I wish I were wrong about this but cannot find a way to dismiss the hard cold facts of the situation without unreasonably modifying the definitions of the words being used. Please help me and my fellow Americans by providing an explanation as to why you believe the GATT accord does not violate the three Constitutional provisions listed.

A detailed response from you will be more am appreciated, I do not sleep very well anymore.

******

Representative Meehan apparently decided to acknowledge receipt of my letter to him and mailed me the following:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concern with my position on the World Trade Organization. I am sorry that we seem to disagree on this important issue. Representing the views of 30,000 constituents is often a difficult task. I try to ensure that my position on issues reflects the majority opinion in my district.

Again, thank you for getting in touch. Although we disagree on this issue, I think we share an important commitment to the integrity and economic health of the United States. Please feel free to contact me again on this or any other matter of concern to you.

******

I do not believe Representative Meehan and I share an important commitment to the integrity and economic health of the United States, so I wrote him again about my beliefs.

Thank you for your letter.

I realize the last thing you want is a response to that letter and I apologize for writing again, but the issues we are addressing are so important that a response is necessary.

I applaud your efforts to ensure that your views reflect the majority opinion in your district. However, I believe you have failed in this regard as far as your support for GATT is concerned. I believe that the GATT accord is clearly unconstitutional and that any informed and unbiased individual would agree with this conclusion. Neither you nor any other government official has been able to demonstrate why this is not the case. Furthermore, I seriously doubt that a majority of your constituents would support or condone your voting to abridge their right to vote by subordinating Congress and the Supreme Court to the Ruling Panels of the World Trade Organization.

The GATT accord violates Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution by surrendering the power of Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations to the WTO, violates Article III, Section 2, by surrendering the judicial power of the Supreme court concerning trade matters to the WTO, and thus has also violated Amendment XV, Section 1, by abridging the voting rights of all Americans. In the course of doing these terrible things we have agreed to abide by the rules and rulings of an organization of many nations, many of which have governments of a questionable nature, where we have one vote and no right to veto, where the by-laws specifically provide for giving developing nations favorable consideration and treatment, where the ruling authorities meet in secret behind closed doors, and where we have agreed to pay 20% of all operating costs at a time when this Nation is essentially bankrupt and must borrow money to be a member. All of the foregoing being true, I would have to be extremely niaeve to believe that your constituents support your position. The GATT accord is so flagrantly un-American and anti-American that one is hard pressed not to wonder if we have just lost a war and that the accord was forced upon us by the victors as punishment.

I would like to think we share an important commitment to the integrity and economic health of the United States, but in all honesty I am not sure you do. Being a GATT supporter makes you a globalist and being a globalist, in my opinion, you are willing to compromise the economic health of this Nation, to enhance the economic health of the nations of the World which you perceive as ultimately being in the best interest of this Nation. Admittedly, this may be a noble goal and I will not fault you in this regard, but the ends do not justify the means. GATT was passed by a simple majority vote on a trade bill in a lame duck session of Congress and its passage changed the nature and form of our government. No matter how noble the goals, the Congress of the United States of America has no authority to change the nature and form of our government other than by amending the Constitution.

My responsibilities as an American are to be loyal to my country and obey its laws. I and my fellow Americans expect nothing less from our National leaders. Unfortunately, by enacting GATT Congress has violated the highest and most sacred laws of this Nation. This being so, how can you or any GATT supporter claim to hold a commitment to the integrity of our Nation? Adherence to the law under the Constitution is the essence of our integrity.

******

Finally, Representative Hastings wrote to me as follows:

Thank you for your follow-up letter to me regarding the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). I am sorry that you were disappointed with my vote in favor of the GATT treaty.

Frankly, you raise some very legitimate constitutional issues regarding GATT. While I am not convinced that the United States should withdraw from the treaty (as you know, there is a two year withdrawal period), you certainly have given me much to think about. It would not surprise me if a court agreed to consider just such the arguments that you have made.

My commitment to free and fair trade worldwide is unwavering. I still think treaties such as GATT and the North American Free Trade Agreement will benefit not only the United States but all countries who participate. It is a win-win situation for the U.S. economy and therefore our citizens. While we continue to analyze the impact of GATT, I assure you that I will keep your views in mind when other trade legislation is considered before the House.

Again, thank you for your letter. I deeply appreciate hearing your view on this important issue. With kind regards, I remain, Sincerely, Alcee L. Hastings, Member of Congress.

******

In Representative Hasting's first letter, he wrote, "You will be pleased to learn that I did not support the GATT agreement. I voted against the treaty because of my concern for the security of American laborers and American business." In his latest letter Representative Hastings writes, "I am sorry that you were disappointed with my vote in favor of the GATT treaty. It is a win-win situation for the U.S. economy and therefore our citizens."

From Mr. Hastings letters, one can conclude he cast two GATT votes; one for and one against the agreement. Furthermore, from his letters, it also appears that Mr. Hastings does not consider American laborers to be citizens and American business as being part of the U.S. economy. Although arguments concerning GATT received from Vice-President Gore and members of Congress are not so obviously contradictory and convoluted as those offered by Mr. Hastings, upon analysis, they are just as absurd.

On January 11, 1996, I wrote the following open letter to the People of this Nation.

Since enactment of the General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade (GATT) in December of 1994, establishing the United States of America as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO), a war of words has been waged by a small minority of Americans about the implications and consequences of WTO membership. No government official has provided a reasonable response to the issues raised about GATT and all arguments offered by the accord's supporters have been faulty and illogical.

A claim has been made that GATT has changed the nature and form of our government. GATT supporters downplay this assertion as posturing which, unfortunately, is not true. The GATT accord is truly a monumental development that has significantly changed the nature and form of our government. This is shocking, but the most alarming aspect of the situation is that Americans are unaware of what has happened because the implications of this change have been ignored by the media. So much for the concepts of an informed electorate and balanced reporting. The purpose of this letter is to provide you with the truth and offer suggestions about how to change our lamentable situation.

GATT is the ultimate 'red herring'. It is not possible to reconcile World Government with our Constitution, so Globalists posture that GATT is a simple trade agreement in our best interest, Nothing is further from the truth. GATT is a dagger that pierces the heart of our Constitution and surrenders the American people to foreign control. We have heard little about GATT since passage because of the outrage expressed by some Americans. The Globalist strategy is to lie low and bide time to minimize public reaction. Unfortunately, if ignored, the WTO's march toward World domination will continue and eventually consume us. GATT, therefore, must be repealed.

What is wrong with the advent of World government? If properly constituted and embracing the principles and safeguards within our Constitution, World government may be worth considering. However, the WTO is not property constituted and the provisions of its charter are such that it appears as if this Nation has just lost a war and GATT was forced upon us as retribution by the victors. As a member of the WTO, we have one vote in an assembly of many nations with no veto. Thus the voice of the 249 million Americans is equal to that of Cuba, Korea, Iran or any other small member nation. Furthermore, the by-laws of the WTO provide for giving developing nations favorable consideration over the interests of developed nations. Finally, adding insult to injury, Congressman John L. Mica, informs us that we must pay 20% of the operating costs of the WTO at a time when our Nation is insolvent and must borrow to meet our commitment.

Supporters claim that the GATT will level the playing field of international trade by eliminating protectionist measures and thereby increase trade, economic growth, employment and wages. However, they conveniently ignore that the reason a nation embraces protectionist measures is to protect economic interests within its borders. Therefore, while the WTO may improve the overall economy of the World, it is reasonable to conclude that our economy will suffer. A level playing field where American workers compete with the low paid workers of the 3rd World is not in the best interest of the United States. We have only to look to NAFTA to understand the truth of this statement.

Assuming that reduced protectionism will be to our benefit, why do we need the WTO to achieve it? According to GATT supporters, the WTO's enforcement mechanism is needed to ensure that other nations eliminate protectionist measures. Left unexplained is, if elimination of protectionism is so beneficial, why must it be forced upon other nations? Assuming an enforcement mechanism within the WTO is to our benefit, are the alleged gains worth the inherent sacrifice of our sovereignty? GATT supporters maintain that despite the existence of an enforcement mechanism, no sovereignty has been lost. Unfortunately, in order to accept this, it is necessary to change the definition of sovereignty and toss conventional wisdom into the trash bin. Under GATT the loss of our sovereignty is real and substantial.

Vice-President Gore maintains that GATT does not affect the sovereignty of the United States to pass and enforce laws or to set its own environmental, safety and health standards. This is true, but the Vice-President fails to add that by adopting GATT, we have agreed to ensure that our laws and standards conform to those of the WTO. Vice-Present Gore also maintains that under GATT, our sovereignty is enhanced because a substantially improved and more effective dispute settlement system will permit us to enforce rights under GATT more effectively. This statement is unsettling and I am appalled that Vice-President Gore fails to understand its implications. First of all, sovereignty cannot be enhanced. Either you are sovereign or you are not. Secondly, a sovereign nation asks no one for permission. If an organization exists that gives permission, it is sovereign to those receiving permission.

Finally, Vice-President Gore maintains that no substantive changes in the rights and obligations of the United States can occur under any of the WTO's provisions unless the United States agrees. This statement is also true, but again left unsaid is the fact that by joining the WTO we have agreed to always agree. The truth of the matter is that by joining the World Trade Organization, Congress has turned itself into its rubber stamp. How GATT supporters fail to see a loss of sovereignty in this is inexcusable.

Our Constitution is a living document that survived the test history. Many Constitutional provisions are subject to interpretation and in the past, Congress has done so for understandable and justifiable reasons. For example, the 2nd Amendment states that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. While these words are clear, no one maintains that they have a right to own and bear heat seeking missiles or nuclear warheads. We accept infringement of the right to own such destructive weapons for the obvious common good. The strength of our Constitution is its flexibility which allows Congress to meet the needs of a changing society. The problem with GATT is that it has stretched the Constitution beyond its limits to a point where its validity has been compromised.

A fundamental principle of our Constitution is that "We the people of the United States", establish our government to provide for our common needs and protect our common interests. In keeping with this, we elect Congressional representatives to enact the laws we live under and the President and Vice-President to lead us. Our supreme judicial authority is the Supreme Court; which is staffed by judges appointed by the President and confirmed by Congress. These branches of Government serve as a check upon each other in the legislative process. Congress passes the laws, but they can be vetoed by the President if not passed by a two-thirds majority or declared unconstitutional if challenged and brought before the Supreme Court. Under GATT, these relationships no longer exist.

The World Trade Organization was established to regulate World trade and has the authority to impose sanctions upon members that do not comply with its rulings. The authority to impose sanctions is the keynote consideration that precludes GATT from being a simple trade agreement and turns the WTO into a governmental authority. By joining the WTO we have agreed to ensure that all existing and future United States laws conform to its laws, regulations, and administrative procedures. By so agreeing, the actions of Congress have been subordinated to those of the WTO and our Supreme Court subordinated to the WTO's Ruling Panels. In consequence, the citizens of this Nation been detached from their lawmakers and a significant body of law governing us no longer falls under Supreme Court jurisdiction.

Our membership in the World Trade Organization is in gross and flagrant violation of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution which establishes Congress as legislative authority for this Nation and Article 111, Section 2, which establishes the Supreme Court as this Nation's highest judicial authority. Therefore, the Fifteenth Amendment, which states that the right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged has also been violated. This state of affairs clearly constitutes a significant change in the nature and form of our government and for the first time in history, we are
governed by legislation passed without representation. It is absurd that a change of this magnitude came to pass from a simple vote on a trade bill in a lame duck session of Congress. Congress has no authority to change the nature and form of our government other than by amending the Constitution.