|
If they don't like the provisions of NAFTA, then vote to withdraw from the treaty or to renegotiate it. It makes no sense to decide years later that some of our concessions are not such a good idea after all. ("Thanks for your concessions in the NAFTA treaty, Mexico, but we have decided that some of the concessions that we made just ain't going to happen. Have a nice day.")
In a treaty negotiation it is common for all parties to make concessions in order to get things from the other side that make the concessions worth it. If a Democratic president is negotiating with North Korea, Iran, China, Russia or anyone else in the future, I imagine the other party might ask whether we intend to live up to the provisions of the treaty. They might fear that we will have the treaty signed by the president and approved by the Senate, but then a few years later we will decide unilaterally that certain provisions need to be eliminated or changed. Rather than renegotiate the treaty we just take a vote and change the part of the treaty that we want to change.
Can the Senate vote that I don't have to live up to the provision in my treaty (contract) with the mortgage company that requires me to make a monthly payment? I know that I signed it and all, but I really don't like having to make that payment every month, so I think I should be able to delete that provision unilaterally.
Look, if the Senate were to vote to withdraw from NAFTA or at least start a renegotiation of its provisions they would get my undying respect and admiration. But, please, a vote to unilaterally delete a provision of an international treaty that has been signed and ratified by the Senate. Well, until you act on my mortgage, I will consider the Mexican trucks vote as pandering.
|