In this video, Dr. Chris explains his stance on the USMCA (United States—Mexico—Canada Agreement). Please see below for the transcript.
Hello. I am Dr. Chris Magiera from Warsaw, Indiana, and I am running for the United States House of Representatives from the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana.
Every day, the career politicians and the massive Administrative State that they support infringe upon your God-given natural rights and liberties. In order to secure these rights, the Founders, acting through the States, developed the Constitution, which in turn provided the basis for a Federal government with limited and enumerated powers. However, from the outset, we were warned that our Constitutional Republic would survive only through eternal vigilance. “A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it!” said Ben Franklin in 1787.
These United States have faced many challenges over the past 200+ years. And one of the greatest challenges has been the threat to our sovereignty posed by foreign influence. Today, this usurpation of the powers from “We the People” comes in the form of the USMCA, the United States—Mexico—Canada Agreement.
The Agreement, as authorized by its implementing legislation, HR 5430, was passed by the House on 12/19/2019. Representative Jim Banks, of the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana, voted “yes” to pass the USMCA Implementation Act. The Act now heads for the Senate to consider in 2020. With this vote, Representative Banks has demonstrated either a massive lack of constitutional knowledge or a willing disregard for the document and the sovereignty of our Union. That is a bold statement, and I will now elaborate.
Under Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 3, “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises…To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations…” These statements authorize Congress, and only Congress, to, on a unilateral basis, institute tariffs on imports and authorize the necessary and proper incidental objects such as customs houses and bureaucracy. The key word here is “unilateral.”
To contrast, a “treaty” is a contract between two or more sovereigns, in which the party nations agree to certain actions with respect to matters, such as “war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce” (James Madison, Federalist 45). Treaties, according to Article 2, Section 2 are a joint function of the President and the Senate: “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”
Some may argue that the Progressive Era Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 created a special category of multilateral trade agreements not requiring the usual treaty-associated, two-thirds Senate approval threshold. There is simply NO constitutional basis for these Congressional-Executive agreements. You can call a pig a horse, but it is still a pig. The Supreme Court can call abortion a “reproductive health matter,” but it is still infanticide.
The Framers and Ratifiers made elegant and thorough debates on the subject of the power of treaties, and these are available for review (see The Founders’ Constitution). The USMCA and its implementing legislation are examples of unconstitutional delegation of powers by the Congress, and as such, are null and void.
So, moving on to the USMCA itself: What, precisely, are my objections to it?
First, as already stated above, it is a treaty, and its adoption must follow constitutional protocol. As an example, looking at Chapter 10, Trade Remedies, 10.12(15)(b), there is language stating that “The Parties SHALL maintain or amend their…statutes and regulations…each Party SHALL maintain or amend its statutes or regulations to ensure that its courts SHALL give full force and effect…to all sanctions imposed pursuant to the laws of the other Parties to enforce provisions…” That is the language of a treaty, not a simple TARIFF designation.
Second, the scope of the USMCA is too broad for its intended tariff-reduction and free-trade-promotion purpose. The USMCA uses the techniques of the old “bait and switch” game, and the principle of the Trojan Horse. The “bait” is the promise of short-term economic gain for some U.S. farmers, manufacturers, and merchants. However, within the 1800+ pages of the document, the “switch” can be seen. I call your attention to Chapters 17 (Financial Services), 23 (Labor), 24 (Environment), 26 (Competitiveness), 30 (Administrative and Institutional Provisions), and 31 (Dispute Settlement) to name a few. The non-tariff Chapters are relatively short, and the implications are disturbing on so many levels. I recommend that the public read these items.
Third, the USMCA represents a grave threat to our sovereignty. Allow me to put forth one example. Chapter 23, Labor, is filled with directives of things that the Parties “SHALL” do. “SHALL” is a very specific and weighty legal term and, when seen, should be taken seriously. Article 23.3: Labor Rights: “Each Party SHALL adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, the following rights, as stated in the ILO (International Labor Organization) Declaration on Rights at Work: 1. a) … the right to collective bargaining; c) the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation… 2) Each Party SHALL adopt and maintain statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, governing acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages, hours of work, and occupational safety and health…23.9) …each Party SHALL implement policies that it considers appropriate to protect workers against employment discrimination on the basis of sex…pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity…provide job-protected leave for birth…”
Our Constitution is very specific about the enumerated and limited powers of our Federal government and the Congress. And Article 6, Section 2 is also very specific that all laws and treaties “shall be made in Pursuance thereof…This Constitution.” So, even if considered as a treaty, the USMCA is out of constitutional bounds and is therefore null and void. What about our God-given Natural Rights, such a Freedom of Religious Expression? What about our state laws with respect to the “right to work”? Are these threatened by the USMCA and its Progressive supporters? Are we to now be subservient to the ILO, the WTO, the UN? I say no.
Here can be seen the real intent of the Globalists to subvert U.S. sovereignty. There are provisions to give migrant workers labor protections and allow unlimited numbers of cross-border workers in some sectors. Supporters of the Agreement would point to the implementing bill, HR 5430, Sec. 102: Relationship of the USMCA to United States and State Law. This section provides that “No provision of the USMCA…which is inconsistent with any law of the United States, shall have effect…Nothing in this Act shall be construed…to amend or modify any law of the United States, or to limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States.” The section goes on to state that “No State law, or the application thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or circumstance on the ground that the provision or application is inconsistent with the USMCA, except in an action brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring such law or application invalid.”
Do you trust or believe Speaker Pelosi or the Deep State? Remember, the USMCA text speaks not only of altering present laws, but mostly of NEW laws: “Each Party SHALL adopt and maintain statutes and regulations…”
What about cases of dispute? USMCA Chapter 31 is an eye-opening read. Disputes are to be settled by unelected and unaccountable panels of “experts,” and, in most of the panel selection scenarios, there would be a bias against the U.S. of three against two. It is a rigged game. The Globalists always win! This is a Progressive dream, placing the fate of our Liberties in the hands of unaccountable “technical experts.” And if this was not enough, back again to HR 5430, the USMCA Implementing Act. In direct contradiction to the Constitution, Sec. 103 delegates some of the enumerated powers of the Congress (Article 1, Section 8) to the President: “Tariff Proclamation Authority.” It goes on: “The President may proclaim such actions, and other appropriate officers of the United States Government may prescribe such regulations…The President may proclaim such modifications or continuation of any duty…as the President determines to be necessary and appropriate…” The possible proclamations go on for two pages.
Call me an alarmist, but I was under the impression that we live in a constitutional Republic, and not a monarchy or aristocracy! With HR 5430, Speaker Pelosi has just created a monarchy. Perhaps we should have paid more attention to Patrick Henry and his protestations against the powers of the presidency: “Your President may easily become King…Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty?” (Speech of Patrick Henry, June 7, 1788)
Fourth, the USMCA, as part of the “bait and switch” scheme, is exposed for what it really is: a stepping stone for the Globalists to destroy our American exceptionalism and establish regional and, eventually, one-world government. To state it again, the plan of the Globalists is to integrate the economies of North America (can you say “EU”?), make the U.S. submissive to foreign, global organizations and policies (International Labor Organization and UN to name a few), and to create an unaccountable regional bureaucracy. If you don’t believe that it can happen, just look at Great Britain and Brexit. Is President Trump complicit with the Globalists, or is he a victim of deceptive advice? I would like to believe the latter. The President and the Senate cannot do with a treaty what the Constitution does not allow (Article 6, Section 2).
And lastly, what about The Wall? The USMCA would have been the ideal vehicle by which to fund physical and technological barriers to ensure international commerce compliance. But no, WE will pay for the non-compliance of others. There will be 1.5 billion dollars for a share in the North American Development Bank, at which we will only have ⅓ vote power. So, others will decide where our taxpayer money will go. There will be 843 million dollars for the USMCA-associated bureaucracy, and projects, such as the 300 million dollar Tijuana River wastewater facilities, where U.S. taxpayers will clean up the river pollution caused by Mexico. And the list goes on. Our sovereignty is now in the hands of the U.S. Senate.
Is there a good side to the USMCA? Yes, of course. It should be the goal of the Federal Government to promote the prosperity of our farmers, manufacturers, and merchants through international trade. Market-driven free trade would be a worthy goal, but few countries follow those rules. At the time of the founding, tariffs were the primary source of Federal government funding. It is interesting to see that, in the writings of the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers, they actually described the “Laffer Curve” with respect to revenue from tariffs.
So, to sum up: Where do we go from here? To promote the prosperity of our farmers, manufacturers, and merchants through foreign commerce is a worthy goal. The USMCA and HR 5430 need to be defeated in the Senate. We need to begin anew, AS A TREATY, concentrating ONLY on tariffs and trade enhancement, and leaving out ALL the extraneous chapters and “one-world government” building language. These United States MUST remain sovereign. The Congress AND the President MUST stay in their respective constitutional lanes, with NO unconstitutional delegation of Congressional powers. International treaties made in the name of the United States should be limited, with few exceptions, to bilateral agreements, so we will not be subject to the dominance of foreign powers.
Madison and Jefferson gave guidance for the remedy of unconstitutional Acts. The People can elect new Representatives, Senators, and Presidents in the hope that the new officers will be pledged to supporting our Constitution. Congress could defund the USMCA. Congress could repeal the USMCA and its Implementing Act. The constitutionality of the USMCA could be challenged in the Article III Courts, but for the most part, asking the Federal Courts to limit the power of the Federal government is like asking a Teamster who should drive a truck. The States could engage in, as per Madison and Jefferson, “Nullification” of unconstitutional Federal Acts. There could be passed a constitutional amendment to make Congressional-Executive Agreements the Law of the Land. There could be a constitutional amendment to grant the President unlimited powers of proclamation. Or, lastly, we could abandon the concepts of God-given Natural Rights and Liberties and the Constitutional Republic developed to secure those rights, and simply return to being a MONARCHY.
Well, I for one am not ready to become a serf. My great-grandparents left that lifestyle back in the old country. You cannot “Make America Great Again” by subverting the Constitution and surrendering our sovereignty. Has Representative Jim Banks voted to do this by virtue of pragmatism, malice, or lack of constitutional knowledge? That is for the voters of the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana to decide in 2020. As for me, I offer the Constitution Solution, 100% of the time. Constitutionality over Utility, always.
So, in closing, I implore you to vote to secure your God-given natural rights and liberties. Vote for Dr. Chris Magiera for U.S. House in the May 5, 2020 Republican primary election. Thank you.