Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12

Thread: Republicanís destination based cash flow tax, (DCBCFT)?

  1. #11
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks
    897

    From
    TN
    A subsequently passed statute supercedes a treaty. It doesn't 'amend' a treaty because the US Congress doesn't possess authority to bind a foreign nation. If we have Treaty X with Canada and Conress passes law Y subsequent to treaty x and y conflicts with x, y prevails. Canada of course could obviously consider this a breach of the treaty.

    A treaty has the same force and effect as a statute. I'm not going to debate this with you, its black letter law, look it up.

    Therefore, if the US passed border adjustability, irrespective of whether WTO is a treaty or not, the tax law would prevail. My point is that other nations will look at this as violating WTO and respond accordingly, ie other nations will likely not permit the US to take protectionist measures with impunity.

    The WTO is what it is. You can look up what we have ratified. Call it a treaty, call it an agreement, I don't care, either we abide by it or we don't, we're free not to abide by it in either case but consequences will occur if we don't.
    Last edited by publius3; 19th January 2017 at 05:28 AM.

  2. #12
    Veteran Member bonehead's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    13,586
    Thanks
    4984

    From
    south
    Quote Originally Posted by publius3 View Post
    A subsequently passed statute supercedes a treaty. It doesn't 'amend' a treaty because the US Congress doesn't possess authority to bind a foreign nation. If we have Treaty X with Canada and Conress passes law Y subsequent to treaty x and y conflicts with x, y prevails. Canada of course could obviously consider this a breach of the treaty.

    A treaty has the same force and effect as a statute. I'm not going to debate this with you, its black letter law, look it up.

    Therefore, if the US passed border adjustability, irrespective of whether WTO is a treaty or not, the tax law would prevail. My point is that other nations will look at this as violating WTO and respond accordingly, ie other nations will likely not permit the US to take protectionist measures with impunity.

    The WTO is what it is. You can look up what we have ratified. Call it a treaty, call it an agreement, I don't care, either we abide by it or we don't, we're free not to abide by it in either case but consequences will occur if we don't.
    correct. once an agreement (of whatever nature) is violated, you open yourself up to punitive action by the other party/parties. it's really not a good idea to pursue such a course of action.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Destination based cash flow tax
    By Supposn in forum Economics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14th January 2017, 05:54 AM
  2. Tax reform should be based in fact, not Republican myth
    By Cicero in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20th March 2012, 04:59 AM
  3. Republican Policy Committee cash flap
    By Politico in forum Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12th July 2010, 03:06 AM
  4. Final destination Iran?
    By michaelr in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15th March 2010, 08:08 AM
  5. Worst RNC cash flow in a decade
    By Vortex in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 9th January 2010, 01:57 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed