----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 12:19 PM Subject: [a16-international-planning] WTO wins the round against the State of Massachusetts... > This is the decision against the State of Massachusetts that we feared would > happen. The ramifications are huge, and of course, barely hinted at in these > mainstream media articles. Please distribute widely! > > > States Lose Trade Discretion Case > > By LAURIE ASSEO > .c The Associated Press > > > WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court, ruling that states cannot infringe on > the foreign policymaking prerogatives of the U.S. government, made it harder > for states to refuse to buy from companies that do business in nations known > for human-rights abuses. > > The court on Monday threw out a Massachusetts law that limits state purchases > from companies doing business with Myanmar, also known as Burma. > > The law is pre-empted by the federal government's own sanctions against > Myanmar, the justices said. > > ``The state act is at odds with the president's intended authority to speak > for the United States among the world's nations in developing a > comprehensive, multilateral strategy to bring democracy to and improve human > rights practices and the quality of life in Burma,'' Justice David H. Souter > wrote for the court. > > The Massachusetts law is similar to the boycotts of South Africa by many > states and cities during the apartheid era. > > However, Souter wrote, ``Since we never ruled on whether state and local > sanctions against South Africa in the 1980s were pre-empted or otherwise > invalid, arguable parallels between the two sets of federal and state acts do > not tell us much about the validity of the latter.'' > > The decision upholds a federal appeals court decision that invalidated the > Massachusetts law. > > A number of state and local governments, including New York City and Los > Angeles, restrict their purchases from companies doing business in countries > such as Myanmar and China or the British province of Northern Ireland. > > During the 1980s, many states and cities protested racial apartheid in South > Africa by boycotting companies that sold goods to that nation. > > Massachusetts - home of the 1773 Boston Tea Party in which colonists dumped > tea in Boston Harbor rather than pay taxes to England - argued that it had a > right to apply a ``moral standard'' to its spending decisions. > > But the law was challenged by a group that represents companies involved in > foreign trade. Foreign policy must be exclusively controlled by the federal > government, the National Foreign Trade Council said, because allowing states > and cities to have a variety of foreign-trade policies would harm trade > overall. > > The Clinton administration supported the group, citing the federal > government's ``preeminent role in acting for the United States in the > international arena.'' > > The military has ruled Myanmar, one of the world's poorest countries, since > 1962. In 1988, the military gunned down thousands of protesters during a > crackdown on a pro-democracy uprising. > > Massachusetts' 1996 law says most companies doing business with Myanmar can > sell goods and services to the state only if their bid is 10 percent lower > than all other bids. > > The law makes exceptions for purchases of some medical devices, for > newsgathering companies, and for international telecommunications companies. > > Several months after the Massachusetts law was enacted, Congress imposed its > own sanctions on Myanmar. Under the law, President Clinton in 1997 barred new > U.S. investments in that country. > > The National Foreign Trade Council challenged the Massachusetts law in 1998. > A federal judge ruled for the council, saying the law unconstitutionally > interfered with the federal government's authority to conduct foreign policy. > > The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling and also said the > law was pre-empted by the federal sanctions against Myanmar. > > The Supreme Court upheld that ruling. > > ``Congress clearly intended the federal act to provide the president with > flexible and effective authority over economic sanctions against Burma,'' > Souter wrote. > > ``It is simply implausible that Congress would have gone to such lengths to > empower the president if it had been willing to compromise his effectiveness > by deference to every provision of state statute or local ordinance'' that > might conflict with federal action, Souter added. > > The case is Crosby vs. National Foreign Trade Council, 99-474. > > On the Net: For current Supreme Court decisions: > http://www.supremecourtus.gov or http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ > > AP-NY-06-19-00 1330EDT > > > > US Supreme Court strikes down Myanmar trade law > > By James Vicini > > > WASHINGTON, June 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court struck down on Monday > a state law that restricts purchases from companies that do business with > Myanmar, ruling that use of trade sanctions to protest human rights abuses > abroad infringed upon the president's power to set foreign policy. > > The unanimous high court declared unconstitutional the Massachusetts law > adopted in 1996 after the military regime in the Southeast Asian nation > formerly called Burma was accused of drug trafficking, torture and using > slave labour. > > The decision has far-reaching implications as a number of other states and > cities across the United States adopted similar laws in the 1980s and 1990s > involving Myanmar and other foreign nations. > > The ruling represented a major victory for the Clinton administration, which > said the state law interfered with the president's exclusive power to set > foreign policy and regulate foreign commerce. > > White House spokesman Joe Lockhart lauded the decision and underscored the > administration's commitment to ``the restoration of democracy and full > respect for human rights in Burma.'' > > In a statement, he said the administration would continue to employ sanctions > against Burma, prohibit new investment, restrict foreign assistance and > travel to the United States by Burmese officials, and coordinate global > actions to ``support the Burmese people in their struggle for political > change.'' > > In the 25-page opinion, Justice David Souter said the law undermined the > president's capacity for effective diplomacy. > > ``Quite simply, if the Massachusetts law is enforceable, the president has > less to offer and less economic and diplomatic leverage as a consequence,'' > he said. > > The administration also said a federal law providing for less stringent > economic sanctions against Myanmar -- adopted by the Congress and signed by > President Bill Clinton three months after the Massachusetts measure -- > preempted the state law. > > LAW INTERFERES WITH PRESIDENT'S AUTHORITY > > Souter agreed with that argument as well, saying the state law posed an > obstacle to the federal law's delegation of discretion to the president to > control economic sanctions against Myanmar. > > The ``selective purchasing law'' at issue directed state officials to publish > a list of companies doing business with Myanmar, and restricted the ability > of those firms to sell goods and services to Massachusetts agencies. > > The law effectively barred firms that do business with Myanmar from doing any > business with Massachusetts and its state agencies by adding 10 percent to > any bids received from those companies. > > Such laws first became popular in the 1980s when many states and cities > boycotted companies that did business in South Africa because of racial > apartheid in that country. > > Massachusetts said similar laws have been adopted by about 20 cities to > protest the repressive dictatorship in Myanmar. Various states and localities > have also imposed trade sanctions on Cuba, China, Northern Ireland, Nigeria > and other countries. > > Massachusetts won the support of a number of other states, but the law has > upset the European Union and Japan, which accused the state of violating > World Trade Organisation rules that prohibit discrimination in government > purchases. > > LAW CHALLENGED BY BUSINESS GROUP > > The law was challenged by the National Foreign Trade Council, a group that > represents U.S. businesses. It argued that states should not be able to > effectively blacklist companies to influence a foreign nation's domestic > policies. > > The group cited the economic impact from the law, saying it affected an > estimated $2 billion in annual purchases by the state. > > Frank Kittredge, the group's president, hailed the ruling. ``Our system of > government was not designed to allow the 50 states and tens of thousands of > municipalities to conduct their own individual foreign policies,'' he said. > > Souter said the state law interfered with the intent of Congress to limit > economic pressure against the Myanmar government to a specific range of > restrictions. > > And he said the law was at odds with the president's authority to speak for > the United States among the world's nations to develop a comprehensive, > multilateral strategy in dealing with Myanmar. > > 20:49 06-19-00 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Looking for Airfare deals? > Visit Expedia.com for limited time offers > http://click.egroups.com/1/5205/6/_/314851/_/961539064/ > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To Post a message, send it to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html <A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
