But it was not treated as a treaty in the U.S.

Clinton submitted NAFTA as an agreement, requiring only a majority of votes in both Houses of Congress for passage, and not a treaty, requiring a two-thirds vote in favor in the Senate. NAFTA passed by votes of 234-200 in the House and 61-38 in the Senate.

Clinton did it this way because he didn't have the votes to pass NAFTA as a treaty (requiring 67 votes) in the Senate. But how did he pull off such a blatantly illegal and unconstitutional move?

Although the strict text of the U.S. Constitution includes the treaty clause as the only means by which the U.S. can enter into such international agreements, there's a growing body of mostly liberal-left "legal opinion" that holds that "congressional-executive agreements" like NAFTA can serve as substitutes for treaties.

REAL ID, Homeland Security, MEPHA, PATRIOT ACT(S), Military Comissions Act, Protect America Act, etc, etc. all represent bipartisan crimes against the Constitution.

By the way, "insurgency" is defined as forces opposing the established government, therefore we have biparitisan insurgency, not just the neocons, against our established lawful government, which is the Constitution. This is the real battle and crisis in America, not "terrorism".

OneWorldOrder is at the root of all these adulterations of our Constitution. There's a cadre in congress that's slowly chipping away at American sovereignty, and
supporting the hideous treaties under the governance of the pathetic United Nations, which is poised to begin taxing our pants off. They would neuter the Constitution and the U.S.Supreme Court. The consequences of all these loony UN laws are really terrifying.

I dismissed the OneWorldOrder doctrine as something similar to a twilight zone theory, when I first heard of
it. But lately, I been connecting the dots, thanks
mainly to the internet, and it appears the the plan is
firmly in place and moving along unimpeded.