Made in the USA Foundation v. United States: NAFTA, the Treaty Clause, and Constitutional Obsolescene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After years of negotiation and domestic political conflict, the United States, Mexico and Canada adopted the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994.1 Four years later, the Made in the USA Foundation and the United Steel Workers of America filed suit in the Northern District of Alabama, 2 charging the United States with passing NAFTA in violation of the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution. 3The plaintiffs argued that Congress, in passing NAFTA, did not abide by the procedures outlined in Article 2, section 2, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution (the Treaty Clause) 4 and that the Treaty Clause 5 outlines a specific procedure for adopting treaties.Because Congress passed NAFTA using a simple majority of both houses rather than a supermajority of one house, NAFTA was argued to be unconstitutional. 6 In a lengthy, largely well-reasoned opinion, Judge Probst found NAFTA constitutional. 7 The opinion in Made in the USA Foundation v. United States raises three critical issues: (1) whether the Supreme Court has the power to negate treaties that violate the Constituthe "Senatorial Dominance Model," which places responsibility for treatymaking with the Senate, in interpreting framers intent as evidenced by behavior at the constitutional convention).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".