Thread: Congressional-Executive Agreements

Hi, I'm new here, but I really need some help!

My AP Government class is doing a debate, and I just so happened to get stuck with the subject of NAFTA (I have to argue against it). Now don't get me wrong, I've done all my research and even read an entire book on the subject, so don't think I'm coming here to ask you guys to do my homework for me.

However, I'm having some trouble with a couple of things.

One of my arguments against NAFTA was that it was passed as a Congressional-Executive Agreement instead of a treaty. Now I understand that passing a treaty requires a 2/3 majority in Congress, but what makes a CEA different? I'm assuming that it made it easier for NAFTA to be passed, but I don't exactly understand how. Can anybody help me?

Also, there's so much information that I've found concerning NAFTA that I don't know which main arguments to focus on in my paper/speech. I would like to choose three to focus on, and then maybe discuss the other ones briefly. The MAIN arguments I have against NAFTA so far are:

1) The fact that it was passed as a CEA as opposed to a treaty -- a way for the president to bypass having to get a 2/3 majority in Congress
2) It has hurt America's economy (factories moving to Mexico for cheap labor, increase in illegal immigration, etc)
3) The dispute-settling agencies established by NAFTA compromise basic American rights (judicial review, due process, etc)

Now, I am by no means against free trade. I just have to pretend to be. I'd really appreciate it if anybody could answer my question regarding CEAs or if anyone could either tell me that my arguments are solid -- or possibly point out some other ones.

Hey Not only was NAFTA bad for us but it's bad for the Mexican people.
As for your real question I have no clue about the CEA, but good luck.
NAFTA isn't as free trade as it seems, its just an agreement between a couple countries, and it totally screwed our border security.