Clipped some bits of the US/MEXICO/CANADA *partnership* for joint prosperity in which NAFTA was talked about quite a bit. The transcripts of what precisely these guys are doing is on the White House website from March of 2005 and  March of 2006.

Here's the link to the SPP Agenda

Now, here's what I want to know. Fox put particular emphasis on the word "Partnership" when asked, for example, if this was like the European Union.

Treaty-

1.	a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

2.	the formal document embodying such an international agreement.

3.	any agreement or compact.

Partnership

1. The state of being a partner.
2. 1. A legal contract entered into by two or more persons in which each agrees to furnish a part of the capital and labor for a business enterprise, and by which each shares a fixed proportion of profits and losses.
   2. The persons bound by such a contract.
3. A relationship between individuals or groups that is characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility, as for the achievement of a specified goal: Neighborhood groups formed a partnership to fight crime.

What Bush had done, regardless of what you CALL it, is enter into a TREATY with Mexico and Canada, one main purpose of which is to conduct NAFTA trade and pass common laws for all three countries.... WITHOUT CONGRESS. He is violating the constitution.

A treaty may not do or exceed what the Congress is charged to do or what it is forbidden to do. Constitutional authority supersedes, overrules, and precludes any contrary treaty authority.

Thus, if a proposed treaty would violate any provision of the Constitution, it may not even be seriously considered or debated, much less be ratified and implemented because the same restrictions that were placed by the Constitution on the U.S. Federal government are also imposed on any treaty provision.

Treaty embroilment is so dangerous and so important, that to further limit and restrict their making, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 orders that the President: "...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; [Emphasis added.]"

This provision accomplishes two things: 1) it prohibits the President alone to commit the United States to an agreement with other nations (the Senate must advise, consent, concur, and ratify). And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home."(1)

Before the destabilizing Seventeenth Amendment was deceptively promoted and irrationally ratified in 1913, each State Legislature appointed its Senators. A Senator is sent to Washington to uphold, defend, represent, and guard the retained rights, jurisdiction, and interests of his individual State. If a proposed treaty would adversely effect the States, their Senators are to protect their respective States by not consenting/ratifying.

Treaties are potentially so threatening to the sovereignty of the individual States and the Union of These States that two thirds of the Senators are required to be convinced that the treaty under consideration does not contravene the U.S. Constitution and/or adversely impact on the retained functions and interests of the States before they consent/ratify.

In 1789, the States directly ratified the Constitution --- as per Article VII. Since then, the States through their representatives (their Senators) must also ratify any treaty --- Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 --- for the same reason, namely, that the creators (the States) must have the final say.

There is a pecking order: God made People, People made States, States made the Union. Therefore, the Union is beholden to the States, the States are beholden to the People, and all three are beholden to God.

Further, Article VI, paragraph 2 quoted above commands that if and when all of the above requirements for a treaty are met --- that is, a) it does not contradict the Constitution; b) it is negotiated by the President who has sworn to not violate, and who in fact is not violating the Constitution; and c) it is ratified by two thirds of the State-defending-Senators who have sworn to not violate, and who do not by their vote violate the Constitution --- then, and only then, may the treaty in question go into full force and effect for the Union and for all of the individual States in the Union. This latter consequence is the reason for Article VI, paragraph 2 to conclude:

"...and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the [not "this"] Constitution [ of any State] or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added.]"

So, the Judges in each State must obey a bona fide treaty, even if the treaty is contrary to that state's Constitution or contrary to any law of that state.

Thus, a properly/legally concluded U.S. treaty overrules any STATE law and any STATE Constitution, but a properly/legally framed U.S. treaty does not, may not, can not, and is forbidden to overrule the U.S. Constitution or abrogate the Sovereignty of the United States. If it does, it is not bona fide. It is a usurpation. It is not "under the Authority of the United States" to make such a treaty...

Thomas Jefferson was clear on this point: "If the treaty power is unlimited, then we don't have a Constitution. Surely the President and the Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way." Alexander Hamilton agreed: "a treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution of the United States."(2)