NAFTA’s side agreements make thisrnpossible. They forbid regulatory policyrnfrom giving an “unfair” eeonomic advantage.rnThis leads to “upward harmonization”:rnMexico’s economy has becomernstrictly regulated while the United Statesrncannot deregulate. Congress, for example,rnenacted a moratorium on expansionsrnof the Endangered Species Act.rnBut green groups in the United Statesrnand Mexico have appealed to NAFTA’srnCommission for En’ironmcntal Cooperationrnto stop it.rnIf this detestable Commission intervenes,rnthe United States will have tornpay fines and suffer trade penalties.rnPoliticians will do whatever is necessaryrnto prevent that. This is one more reasonrn—among hundreds—why the UnitedrnStates should immediately withdrawrnfrom NAFTA. It is also why, in a justrnworld, NAFTA’s supporters should berndragged before a people’s tribunal,rnwhere the might finalK recant.rn—Jeffrey TuckerrnT H E CONTRACT with America isrnclearly expanding the power of the federalrngovernment, and if you don’t believernit, take a look at yet another piece of legislationrnthat will supersede local statutesrnand ordinances across the 50 states. It’srncalled the Telecommunications Competitionrnand Deregulation Act of 1995, andrnit’s part of the GOP plan to eliminaternbarriers to entry into the burgeoningrnindustry in cellular phones and otherrnelectronic gadgetry that are paving therninformation superhighway. The problemrnis, the bill is the equivalent of a legislativernblunderbuss that will blow tornsmithereens niggling obstacles such asrnzoning laws. Consider the main clauses:rn”No state or local statute, regulation orrnother legal requirement shall effectivelyrnprohibit any carrier or other person fromrnentering” the telecommunications business.rnMoreover, counties mav not passrnan ordinance that would “effectively prohibitrnany person or carrier from providingrnany interstate or intrastate telecommunicationsrnor information service.” Lastly, arnstate or locality is barred from chargingrnfees that would increase the cost of providingrnservice. The Federal CommunicationsrnCommission will wield thisrnmailed fist of the federal black knight.rnThe legal consequences of the bill’srnlanguage will soon become clear to smallrntowns near big cities ever’where, as thernuse of cellular telephones increases. Indeed,rna summertime fight in McLean,rnVirginia, about 12 miles away fromrnWishington, D.C., illustrated the scopernof the bill and its impact even before itrnpassed. As reported in the McLean ProvidencernJournal, the furious residents ofrnMcLean were trying to stop the constructionrnof a “monopole,” which is Toffleresernfor cellular telephone pole. Cellphonesrnrequire antennae attached tornanything high enough to make the antennaernaccessible to the signals, andrnMcLeanites readily approed a telecommunicationsrncompany’s request to attachrnits antennae to buildings of thernright height, or as in one case, to one ofrnthe lights at the high school football stadium.rnIn those eases, no one objectedrnbecause thev do no violence to the landscape.rnHoweer, what no one realizedrnwas that cell phones require antennaernabout every two miles, which limits thernpreexisting sites suitable for an antenna.rnEventually, a monopole had to be built,rnand the telecommunications companyrndecided to plant one of its InformationrnAge totems at a prominent intersection,rnwhere it would be visible to those wliorndo not want to worship it. That, naturallyrnenough, ruffled the feathers ofrnMcLean’s feisty residents, who take thernappearance of their small burg very seriously.rnOne-hundred-fift’ feet might notrnseem very tall until you gie that height arnperspective that most folks can understand:rn150 feet is 15 stories.rnNo wonder McLeanites were so upset.rnMcLean has never been home to Randianrnskyscrapers and other shrines to capitalism,rnand residents there want to keeprnit that wa’. Indeed, more than one developerrnhas left McLean, which ironicallyrnenough is second home to many of thernsenators and congressmen who voted forrnthe legislation, bruised and bloodied.rnBut not this time, as residents learned atrna few meetings where they got the latestrnnews on their monopole. The telecommunicationsrnindustry had a little legislativernsomething up its sleeve: thernTelecommunications Competition andrnDeregulation Act of 1995.rnThe bill’s language is very clear.rnTelecommunication rules. It isn’t hardrnto imagine a crafty lawyer’s arguments: arnzoning law has “barred” a firm from exercisingrnits right to enter the industrv becausernit cannot build a monopole at arnparticular location; a state or county isrncharging a fee, which is a “barrier to entry”rninto the telecommunications business,rnbecause it requires the firm to makerna “proffer,” a frequently used device thatrnmight require, for instance, a developerrnto maintain roads to his complex in returnrnfor a zoning concession. As for constitutionality,rnyou can expect the industryrnto rely on the commerce clause of thernConstitution. Because cell-phone callsrncross state lines, they are no doubt consideredrn”interstate commerce,” whichrnCongress, not the states, may regulate.rnThe particulars of this bill, whichrnawaits final passage, aren’t as importantrnas the two truths that have been revalidatedrnand the principle under attack.rnFirst, don’t expect politicians, whateverrnpartv they represent, to relinquish powerrnonce they have tasted it. Second, neverrntrust a politician who says he speaks forrnthe people. It’s more likely he is a dictatorrnthan a democrat.rnThe principle, once again brazenly repudiatedrnby Mr. Gingrich and his pals, isrnthe one thev used, with the decisive helprnof radio talk-show hosts, to get elected.rnIt is the Contract’s central theme: thernfederal citadel from which the bureaucratrncrusaders gallop on their regulatoryrnsteeds must be dismantled brick byrnbrick. Laws like this one pull up the visorrnon the Republican Galahads and exposernthe most heralded political document ofrnthe last 30 years for what it isn’t. ThernContract is no Magna Carta, CapitolrnHill no Runnvmeade.rn—R. Cort KirkwoodrnO B I T E R DICTA: The next meetingrnof the John Randolph Club will be heldrnin San Mateo, California, on Novemberrn17 and 18. Speakers who will address thisrnmeeting are Thomas Fleming, LlewellynrnRockwell, and Samuel Francis, amongrnothers. For more information, see the adrninside the front cover. On October 25,rnThomas Fleming will speak at the Universityrnof Georgia Law School in Athensrnon the issue of federalism. Admission isrnfree. For more information, contactrnWilliam Gawthon at (706) 549-5653.rnIn Virginia, look for Chronicles atrnthe following outlets: Anna ‘n’ Dale’srnNewsstand, 7025 Columbia Pike, Annandale;rnOld Town News, 721 KingrnStreet, Alexandria; Borders Bookstore,rnCrossroads Center, Baileys Crossroads;rnSuburban News. 121 East Little CreekrnRd., Norfolk; Tower Records, 20F 6200rnLittle River Turnpike, Alexandria; B.rnDalton Booksellers, 1546 Big Road,rnChariottesville; Barnes & Noble Superstore,rn1200 Hugenot Road, Midlothian.rnOCTOBER 1995/7rnrnrn