
When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism - hello_there
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/
======
arca_vorago
I just want to point out that anybody currently in the United States
government who has sworn an oath to the constitution and has signed the
required affidavit would be in violation of their oath of office if they
advocate the overthrow of our system of government, which includes casual
dismissal of our national sovereignty via globalism, and therefor subject to
the penalty of removal from office and confinement or a fine.

This to me is the crux of the matter. If you attempt to hand wave away
national sovereignty via globalism or even as pdog says regional
globalization, you effectively are advocating traitorous policy (unless
specifically called for via constitutional means of alteration of the
constitution), not only that, but if the US was to embrace that method, it
would lose legitimacy as a government. I don't buy for a second this
hullaballo about inevitable globalism. Yes, we have global markets that all
effect each other, that's not disputable, what is disputable is that we should
allow that excuse to further undermine basic principles of national
sovereignty, or further, to undermine the national sovereignty of other
countries via imperialism wrapped in banners of globalism.

[https://youtu.be/RgcdRCWEt4Q?t=5097](https://youtu.be/RgcdRCWEt4Q?t=5097)

Keep in mind that's a Larouche video, so retain a skeptical view.

~~~
rebuilder
In legal terms, I think you'd have a hard time making that case in court.
IANAL, but just practically, wouldn't this preclude the USA from taking part
in international treaties, since they necessarily give some power over US
actions to non-US actors?

~~~
arca_vorago
No because treaties are specifically addressed in the constitution via the
treaty clause, but are still lower than the constitution due to the nature of
the constitution as the supreme law of the land, and are made part of US law
once ratified, therefore no treaty can violate the constitution in any way.
(in theory at least). Now, any treaty which does violate the constitution that
is attempted to pass would then make those party to negotiating it guilty.

For example, TPP was seen coming down the line, but the powers that be
recognized this, which is why they twisted the arm of congress into passing
fast-track, in which congress, potentially unconstitutionally, traded powers
of treaty review in exchange for ~100 _optional_ objectives from potus. This
was legal maneuvering to prevent just such objections when they are going to
try to shove TPP and similar nafta 2.0 things down our throats. The other
thing they have been doing is calling things trade agreements which are really
treaties, but trade agreements fall under different rules.

I would also say that the passage of fast-track is in violation of the
nondelgation doctrine, but that's just a principle not a law.

------
pdog
We're witnessing history as part of a larger Hegelian dialectic. We're not
going back to the isolated nation state (that ship sailed a long time ago).
However, it's clear that unfettered globalization will give way to something
akin to regional spheres of influence.

Thesis: Globalism

Antithesis: Nationalism

Synthesis: Regional Globalization

