Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION PROPST, Senior District Judge. This cause comes to be heard on a motion to dismiss filed by the defendant on December 21, 1998 and on the respective motions for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs on March 19, 1999 and by the defendant on April 19, 1999. The parties have acknowledged that there are no genuine issues of fact and that the only issues are issues of law. This court heard recorded oral arguments on May 17, 1999. The parties acknowledged at that hearing that there is no need for any further hearing before this court, evidentiary or otherwise. I. Introduction and Summary of the Parties’ Positions In 1990 the United States, Mexico and Canada initiated negotiations with the intention of creating a “free trade zone” through the elimination or reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade. After two years of negotiations, the leaders of the three countries signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA” or the “Agreement”) on December 17, 1992. Congress approved and implemented NAFTA on December 8, 1993 with the passage of NAFTA Implementation Act (“Implementation Act”), which was passed by a vote of 234 to 200 in the House and 61 to 38 in the Senate. The Implementation Act served two purposes, to “approve” NAFTA and to provide a series of laws to “locally” enforce NAFTA’s provisions. The enactment of the Implementation Act brought to a close a lengthy period of rancorous debate over NAFTA. The instant suit seeks to reopen that debate by pulling back NAFTA’s coat and demonstrating that the Agreement and Implementation Act stand on sand rather than on firm Constitutional ground. Brought to bear in this case is an almost century-long bout of Constitutional theorizing about whether the Treaty Clause, contained in Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution (the “Treaty Clause”), creates the exclusive means of making certain types of international agreements. Neither NAFTA nor the Implementation Act were subjected to the procedures outlined in the Treaty Clause. The President purportedly negotiated and concluded NAFTA pursuant to his constitutional responsibility for conducting the foreign affairs of the United States and in accordance with the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, 19 U.S.C. § 2901, et seq. (“Trade Act of 1988”), and the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq., (“Trade Act of 1974”), under the so-called “fast track” procedure. Congress then approved and implemented NAFTA by enacting the Implementation Act, allegedly pursuant to its power to legislate in the areas of tariffs and domestic and foreign commerce. The plaintiffs contend that this failure to go through the Article II, Section 2, prerequisites renders the Agreement and, apparently, the Implementation Act, unconstitutional. The Government denies this, arguing, first, that this court has no Article III jurisdiction over the instant question because the plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action and also because the plaintiffs’ claims present a non-justiciable political question and, second, that NAFTA and the Implementation Act are not in violation of the Constitution. The issues have been exceedingly well-briefed and well-argued by both sides. As the Romans might have said, this court is now charged with finding ventas from toto cáelo positions. This court has been supplied with a variety of ingredients from the parties, academic pundits, voices from the past, caselaw extrapolations and other sources from which a judicial chef can create any desired Constitutional pottage. The issues are relatively easy to state, but are more difficult to resolve. The issues are the following: (1) Do the individual plaintiffs have standing to bring this action? (2) Do plaintiffs Made in the U.S.A. Foundation, United Steel Workers of America and Local 12L United Steel Workers have standing to bring this action? (3) Does the political question doctrine preclude jurisdiction of this court as to all plaintiffs and all claims? (4) Do NAFTA and the Implementation Act constitute a “treaty” as contemplated by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution? (5) Even if NAFTA and the Implementation Act constitute a “treaty” as contemplated by Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, was the making and implementation of NAFTA authorized under other provisions of the Constitution? The only certitude established by the parties through their briefs and oral arguments is that there is no certitude with regard to -any of the issues. Remarkably, in the over two hundred years of this nation, the Supreme Court of the United States has not specifically and definitively decided the principles applicable to issues (4) and (5). I will discuss the issues in the order stated, except that it will not be possible to totally separate the discussion of the principles applicable to the various issues, because the issues are intertwined. There may be some duplication of discussion. I will, however, reach separate conclusions as to these intertwined issues. In my discussion I will summarize and emphasize the arguments of the parties. I am well aware that this court lacks both infallibility and finality and that any decisions I reach will likely be ephemeral. For this reason I wish to give full vent to the parties’ positions as well as reach my own conclusions. Actual quotes from cases, documents, treatises, articles, etc. as stated by the parties are adopted by the court unless otherwise stated. II. Standing For the purposes of the standing analysis the plaintiffs can be divided into two distinct groups: (1) the “voter plaintiffs,” consisting of those plaintiffs who have brought claims in their individual capacities and (2) the “institutional plaintiffs,” which include the Made in the USA Foundation, the United Steelworkers of America, and Local 12L United Steel Workers. The Government asserts that both the institutional and voter plaintiffs lack standing to bring them claims. Although the standing arguments differ somewhat with respect to each of the two sets of plaintiffs, the basic principles of the standing analysis, as outlined by the Supreme Court, apply to both. “While the Constitution of the United States divides all power conferred upon the Federal Government into ‘legislative Powers,’ ‘[t]he executive Power,’ and ‘[t]he judicial Power,’ it does not attempt to define those terms.” The Constitution clearly “limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies’ ...” The Supreme Court has stated that, “No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” As stated in Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984), “the case or contro: versy requirement defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded.” “One of the landmarks, setting apart the ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies’ that are ‘serving] to identify those disputes which are appropriately resolved through the judicial process,’ — is the doctrine of standing.” “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” The Supreme Court’s decision in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992), represents, perhaps, the most comprehensive exposition of the standing requirements the Court has provided. In Lujan, the Court noted that the standing analysis requires the examination of three criteria, stating: ... [T]he core component of standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III. Over the years, our cases have established that the irreducible constitutional minimum of standing contains three elements. First, the plaintiff must have suffered an ‘injury in fact’ — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural’ or ‘hypothetical.’ Second, there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of — the injury has to be ‘fairly trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.’ Third, it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’ 504 U.S. at 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (citations omitted). As to the third prong of the standing analysis, the Ninth Circuit has stated that “[T]o have standing, a federal plaintiff must show only that a favorable decision is likely to redress his injury, not that a favorable decision will inevitably redress his injury.” The Supreme Court’s decision in Public Citizen v. Dept. of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 109 S.Ct. 2558, 105 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989), where the Court found that a declaratory judgment might fulfill the re-dressability requirement even if it does not provide full redress for the plaintiffs’ injuries, appears to support the Ninth Circuit’s position. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court “ha[s] always insisted on strict compliance” with Article III standing requirements, and the standing inquiry is “especially rigorous” in determining the constitutionality of legislation. Significant in the analysis of any legal doctrine is the placement of the burden of proof and the degree of proof required. In Lujan, the Court discussed the burden of proof applicable to a standing analysis, stating: The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements. See FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 608,107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990); Warth, 422 U.S., at 508, 95 S.Ct., at 2210. Since they are not mere pleading requirements but rather an indispensable part of the plaintiffs case, each element must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i.e., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation. See Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871, 883-889, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3185-3189, 111 L.Ed.2d 695 (1990); Gladstone Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 114-115, and n. 31, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 1614-1615, and n. 31, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979); Simon, 426 U.S., at 45, n. 25, 96 S.Ct., at 1927, and n. 25; Warth, 422 U.S., at 527, and n. 6, 95 S.Ct., at 2219, and n. 6 (Brennan, J., dissenting). At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we “presum[e] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S., at 889, 110 S.Ct., at 3189. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (emphasis added). Thus, for the purposes of this motion, this court will presume that the general allegations made in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with respect to their alleged injuries are true and that they “embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” Nonetheless, this court will remain mindful of the plaintiffs’ responsibility of showing that their claims are properly before this court, as the Supreme Court has warned that it is “the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers,” and that “a federal court is powerless to create its own jurisdiction by embellishing otherwise deficient allegations of standing.” As noted above, the parties divide their standing arguments into two primary categories: (1) those involving the voter plaintiffs; and (2) those involving the institutional plaintiffs. The court will address each in turn. A. Voter Standing The individual plaintiffs contend that they have established standing by alleging that their voting rights were diluted because their Senators’ votes on the approval of NAFTA and its Implementing Act were not given their proper weight. According to Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982), Article III of the Constitution “requires the party who invokes the court’s authority to ‘show that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant.’ ” A plaintiff must also show that he “stand[s] to profit in some personal interest” by a judgment in his or her favor. Further, the plaintiff must show that he has been injured in some particularized way, meaning that the plaintiffs “injury must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” It is “the responsibility of the complainant clearly to allege facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers.” The basis for standing is established “so long as each person can be said to have suffered a distinct and concrete harm.” However, “[t]he fact that other citizens or groups of citizens might make the same complaint ... does not lessen appellants’ asserted injury and “an asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court.” While the Supreme Court has held that standing exists when a plaintiffs vote has been diluted relative to the votes of other citizens, or when voting districts are distorted in the interest of providing specific groups of voters more or less leverage, the Court has never recognized/addressed the standing of a plaintiff claiming an injury based on the dilution of the vote of his elected representative. However, the voter plaintiffs in this case are asking this court to decide just such an issue. They maintain that their voting rights were harmed because their Senators’ votes against the approval of NAFTA were effectively nullified by the failure of the Senate and the President to comply with the Treaty Clause. 1. Michel v. Anderson The strongest support for voter plaintiffs’ standing argument comes in the form of the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623 (D.C.Cir.1994). In Michel, the D.C. Circuit held that voters had standing to challenge the constitutionality of a House rule allowing territorial delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole, which diluted their representatives’ votes. Citing previous cases in which the Supreme Court held that voters had standing to challenge practices allegedly diluting their vote, the court stated: [I]n this case the alleged [vote] dilution occurs after the voters’ representative is elected ... [b]ut we do not understand why that should be of any significance. It could not be argued seriously that voters would not have an injury if their congressman was not permitted to vote at all on the House floor. That all voters in the states suffer this injury, along with the appellants, does not make it an “abstract” one. 14 F.3d at 626. The voter plaintiffs argue that this court should follow the reasoning of the Michel court and determine that they have standing to bring their claims against the Government. 2. Raines v. Byrd; Determining the Applicability and Viability of Michel According to the Government, the individual plaintiffs’ attempt to assert standing through a two-step “bootstrapping” argument fails due to the lack of a particularized or identifiable injury to the plaintiffs themselves. Further, the Government contends that NAFTA did not affect the rights of the voter plaintiffs’ Senators to participate and vote on legislation, and that the passage of NAFTA did not hinder the Senators’ ability to participate and vote in the future. The Government argues both that Michel is factually dissimilar from this case and that the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines v. Byrd casts serious doubt as to Michel’s continued viability. In Raines, individual members of Congress brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act. The Court held that the individuals did not have a sufficient “personal stake” in the dispute and did not sufficiently allege a concrete injury so as to establish standing under Article III. The Court, distinguishing its decision in Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969), found that the Act did not single out any of the plaintiffs, but that the diminution of power damaged all Members of Congress equally. The Court also found that the plaintiffs were seeking redress from a loss of political power rather than something to which they were personally entitled, as was the case in Powell. The Raines court further concluded that the plaintiffs’ situation did not fall within its holding in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433, 59 S.Ct. 972, 83 L.Ed. 1385 (1939). In Coleman, the Court recognized the standing of state legislators who had been locked in a tie vote that would have defeated the state’s ratification of a proposed federal constitutional amendment, and who claimed that their votes were nullified when the Lieutenant Governor broke the tie by casting his vote in favor of ratification. The Court found that the plaintiffs had “a plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes.” The plaintiffs in Raines, however, had not alleged that they voted for a specific bill, that there were sufficient votes to pass the bill, and that the bill was nonetheless deemed defeated. The Court thus determined that application of Coleman to the facts of Raines would require too great an extension of the Coleman decision. The abstract notion of dilution propounded by the Raines plaintiffs was simply not enough to create standing. The Government argues that this case is factually similar to Raines in that the plaintiffs in this case are seeking redress for a dilution in voting power that each member of the Senate has experienced. The failure to utilize the Treaty Clause mechanism for the passage of international agreements does not, according to the Government, single out any particular Senators, rather, it influences the relative weight of each of their votes. Further, the Government contends that this case is similar to Raines in that the plaintiffs are complaining of a loss of political power rather than of an individual right. Thus, argues the Government, the Supreme Court’s Raines decision arguably repudiates the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Michel. The plaintiffs, in contrast, concentrate on the Raines decision’s discussion of Coleman. They argue that here, as in Coleman, the complaint focuses on the legislators’ loss of voting power in relation to a specific vote. The plaintiffs contend that although the individual plaintiffs’ Senators had sufficient votes to defeat the passage of NAFTA, the Senate, the Congress and the President failed to acknowledge the fact that the Agreement had not been properly ratified. They argue that their votes were not given the proper weight and that they therefore lost a vote which they should have won. The Government also argues that the voter plaintiffs have failed to allege any specific injury apart from the “generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional government.” The Government points to the Supreme Court’s language in Lujan, where the Court stated that: [Rjaising only a generally available grievance about government — claiming only harm to his and every citizen’s interest in the proper application of the Constitution and laws, and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefits him than it does the public at large — does not state an Article III case or controversy. 504 U.S. at 573-74, 112 S.Ct. 2130. The Government, in characterizing the plaintiffs’ complaint as a generalized grievance, also cites Fairchild v. Hughes, 258 U.S. 126, 42 S.Ct. 274, 66 L.Ed. 499 (1922), where the Court dismissed a suit challenging the propriety of the process by which the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified. This case, according to the Government, involves nothing more than a generalized claim that the individual plaintiffs’ Senators, like all other Senators, have, in an indirect and abstract manner, lost some of their voting power. Thus, based on the Supreme Court’s language in Raines, Lujan, and Fairchild, the Government contends that the voter plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed for lack of standing. The Government also suggests that the plaintiffs’ claims do not entitle them to any type of declaratory judgment or injunctive relief. The Government argues that when a plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, he or she must “establish a real and immediate threat of future injury.” “Past exposure to illegal conduct does not suffice to confer standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief, absent a real threat of imminent and continued exposure to the conduct.” Thus, the Government claims, citing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), that unless the plaintiffs can show that the Government will again violate the provisions of the Constitution, they have no right to declaratory and/or injunctive relief. B. First Conclusion of the Court I conclude that the individual plaintiffs have not satisfactorily alleged “voter standing.” In Allen v. Wright, the Supreme Court noted that part of the standing inquiry involves the following inquiry: “Is the injury too abstract, or otherwise not appropriate, to be considered judicially cognizable.” Such is the case for the individual plaintiffs. I cannot conclude that these plaintiffs have alleged that they have been injured in a “personal and individual way” or that their injury is “concrete and particularized.” As in Raines, the plaintiffs in this case have not been individually “singled out for specially unfavorable treatment.” Although the plaintiffs argue that their Senators’ votes were not given their proper weight in the NAFTA vote, the plaintiffs do not contend that the NAFTA vote was specifically engineered to injure them or that the process used to conclude NAFTA was created solely for the purpose of diluting their Senators’ votes. The fast track procedure has been used to conclude a number of international agreements since its inception in 1974, it was not created for the purpose of diminishing the votes of the plaintiffs’ Senators. Whatever injury, if any, these plaintiffs may have suffered may be shared by any citizen of the United States who objects to NAFTA regardless of whether their Senator(s) voted for or against NAFTA. A voter whose Senator(s) voted for NAFTA but who himself objects to NAFTA would arguably have an equal right to complain as would a voter whose Senator(s) voted against NAFTA. These plaintiffs’ votes have been no more diluted. The injury claimed by the voter plaintiffs is simply too abstract to suffice for standing in this case. As noted by the Whitmore Court, “an asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with the law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction ...” The voter plaintiffs have asserted little else. These plaintiffs’ claims will be dismissed for lack of standing. C. Institutional Plaintiffs The Government argues that the institutional plaintiffs’ claims fail to establish standing when examined under the second and third prongs of the Lujan analysis, claiming that the institutional plaintiffs have failed to show that their alleged injuries are fairly traceable to actions taken by the defendant and that they have failed to establish that their injuries are redressable by this court. 1. Causal Connection According to the Government, the vague and non-specific allegations of the institutional plaintiffs fail to form sufficient foundation for establishing that their injuries are “fairly traceable” to the actions of the defendant. Further, although the Government argues that the general “causal connection” language of cases such as Lujan sufficiently illustrates why the institutional plaintiffs lack standing in this case, it makes an additional “causal connection” argument based on a claimed distinction between NAFTA itself and NAFTA’s implementing legislation. a. The Government’s Claimed Distinction Between the NAFTA Agreement and the Implementing Legislation The Government contends that NAFTA, as concluded between the United States, Canada and Mexico, is separate and distinct from the implementing legislation and related regulations. The Government further submits that the parties to NAFTA did not intend NAFTA to be self-executing, but agreed that each nation would adopt the “necessary legal procedures” to give the agreement effect as domestic law under their respective systems of government. The “necessary legal procedures” employed by the United States came in the form of the Implementation Act. In passing the Implementation Act, Congress approved NAFTA and made “all amendments to existing Federal statutes or provision of new authorities, including authority for Federal agencies to issue regulations, known to be necessary or appropriate to enable full implementation of, and compliance with, U.S. obligations under NAFTA.” The crux of the Government’s contention with respect to this matter is that even though the Implementation Act refers to NAFTA in establishing a number of the laws necessary for the agreement’s implementation, such reference simply incorporates certain written terms of NAFTA into duly-approved domestic legislation. The mere fact that the Implementation Act refers to NAFTA does not, according to the Government, make the Agreement and the Act one and the same. In refuting the plaintiffs’ contentions, outlined below, regarding whether or not portions of NAFTA are self-executing, the Government points to 19 U.S.C. § 3312(a) which states that no provision of NAFTA shall have effect if it is inconsistent with federal law. This, argues the Government, is a clear statement by Congress indicating that NAFTA itself was to have no effect on United States domestic law. The Government’s “causal connection” argument springs from its contention that the plaintiffs’ complaint focuses on injuries that could only be caused by the Implementation Act as opposed to NAFTA itself. The Government cites a number of passages from the plaintiffs’ complaint seeking relief from the “implementation” of NAFTA rather than from NAFTA itself, and notes that the plaintiffs have failed to identify any specific provisions of NAFTA itself that have contributed to their alleged injuries. Thus, the Government concludes that the plaintiffs’ claims, while allegedly attacking the constitutionality of NAFTA itself, actually focus upon the provisions of the Implementation Act. This is significant in that, according to the Government, the plaintiffs cannot legitimately argue that the Implementation Act is unconstitutional. Therefore, according to the Government’s analysis, the plaintiffs’ claims are not challenging, and cannot challenge, the constitutionality of the true source of their injuries — the Implementation Act. Rather, plaintiffs’ claims call for the elimination of NAFTA, an international agreement, while claiming injury from duly passed domestic legislation. Thus, the Government argues that the plaintiffs have failed to allege facts showing that their alleged injuries are “fairly traceable” to NAFTA itself. b. The Plaintiffs’ Response The institutional plaintiffs note that their complaint alleges that they have suffered the following injuries as a result of the approval and implementation of NAFTA: (1) members of plaintiff Made in the USA Foundation have been impeded in their efforts to buy American-made goods; (2) members of plaintiffs USWA, Local 12L, and Made in the USA Foundation have lost their jobs; (3) plaintiff USWA has lost members as a result of those job losses; (4) plaintiff USWA and its members have been impeded in their efforts to negotiate collective bargaining agreements; and (5) plaintiff USWA.has been forced to utilize scarce resources to counteract and seek redress for the various injuries that NAFTA has caused its membership. They therefore argue that the Government’s basic lack of causal connection argument is without merit. The institutional plaintiffs make several arguments with respect to the Government’s arguments based on the distinction between NAFTA and the Implementation Act. They first contend that, despite the Government’s attempt to characterize them otherwise, the claims contained in the amended complaint are directed at injuries caused by NAFTA itself. They note that even their original complaint seeks relief from injuries caused both by the making and implementation of NAFTA and that the amended complaint refers specifically to injuries caused by NAFTA itself. Further, they maintain that the attempt to separate NAFTA from the Implementation Act is an invention of the Government for the purposes of this ease and that the alleged distinction represents an attempt to separate that which is inexorably bound together. The plaintiffs point out that President Clinton’s 1997 “Study on the Operation and Effect of the North American Free Trade Agreement” refers in general to “NAFTA’s ... benefits,” not to the benefits created by the Implementation Act. The Statement of Administrative Action submitted to Congress by the President (hereinafter “SAA” or “Statement of Administrative Action”), explaining the expected impact.of NAFTA and describing the necessary implementing legislation acknowledged that, “as a result of NAFTA,” some workers would lose their jobs. The Statement of Administrative Action also stated that the purpose of the implementing legislation was “to bring U.S. law fully into compliance with U.S. obligations under the Agreement.” The plaintiffs also argue that the Implementation Act itself makes it clear that it cannot exist without NAFTA, pointing out that most of its provisions take effect only as of the date of entry into force of NAFTA, and that even its threshold provision, in 19 U.S.C. § 3311, acknowledges this dependence. These references to NAFTA represent more than an incorporation of NAFTA’s provisions, argue the plaintiffs. Rather, they represent the complete dependence of the Implementing Act upon the making of the Agreement itself. The plaintiffs further maintain that the dependence of the Implementation Act on NAFTA does not stop with the threshold provision of the Implementation Act. Rather, they contend that a number of the specific provisions of the Implementation Act are dependent upon NAFTA for their effectiveness. The plaintiffs’ primary examples are the tariff provisions. While the Government characterizes the tariff provisions as completely independent of NAFTA itself, the plaintiffs point out that, in providing the President with authority to reduce tariffs in order to comply with NAFTA, Congress provided that the President could modify or reduce tariffs as “necessary or appropriate to carry out or apply articles 302, 305, 307, 308, and 703 and Annexes 302.2, 307.1, 308.1, 300-B, 703.2, and 703.3 of the [NAFTA].” The plaintiffs also argue that many of NAFTA’s provisions are completely independent from the Implementation Act, such that, even if one were to attempt to view the Agreement and the Act as severa-ble, NAFTA would still be playing a major role in the harm suffered by the plaintiffs. Examples of self-executing provisions within NAFTA, according to the plaintiffs, include: (1) commitments made under Articles 302, 307, 309 and 310, whereby the United States agreed not to increase any duty except as provided for in the Agreement and not to adopt certain other prohibitions or restrictions on imports, and (2) provisions under Chapter Eleven requiring Mexico to change its policies regarding foreign investment. Plaintiffs claim that although the law changed in the second example is Mexican law, the law clearly would not have been changed without the Agreement, and that the change has injured plaintiffs by causing American businesses and jobs to move to Mexico. According to the plaintiffs, the Government’s distinction between NAFTA and its implementing legislation is both new and inaccurate. Thus, they contend not only that their claims clearly focus on both the Agreement and the Act, but that, to the extent that they do not, such failure makes no difference in light of the fact that they are part of an indivisible whole. 2. Redressability The Government’s primary standing-based argument with respect to the institutional plaintiffs focuses on whether the plaintiffs’ injuries would likely be redressed in the event of a favorable ruling. As noted above, where “none of the relief sought by [the plaintiffs’] would likely remedy [their] alleged injury in fact, [the court] must conclude that [plaintiffs] lack standing ...” The Lujan decision, among others, makes clear that “it must be ‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’ ” The institutional plaintiffs seek two orders from this court: (1) a declaration that NAFTA was not approved in a constitutional manner and therefore is “null, void and of no effect”; and (2) an order directing the President to notify the governments of Mexico and Canada that, within thirty days, the United States is terminating its participation in NAFTA. The Government contends that a recognition of the distinction between NAFTA and the Implementation Act, as detailed above, reveals the fact that even if the plaintiffs did obtain a ruling declaring NAFTA itself unconstitutional, which is all the Government believes that plaintiffs can expect to get in the event of their success on the merits, such a ruling would have no effect on the validity of the Implementation Act. With respect to this court’s ability to strike down NAFTA itself, the Government contends: (1) that this court lacks the requisite authority to order the President of the United States to notify Mexico and Canada of this nation’s withdrawal from NAFTA; (2) that an order directed at subordinate executive branch officials would be insufficient to cease the implementation of NAFTA; and, finally, (3) whatever declaratory judgment the plaintiffs could obtain, be it in the form of an order directing the President to take an action, an order directed at subordinate officials, or a general order declaring NAFTA unconstitutional, is not likely to remedy the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries, because such a judgment would not necessarily cause the governments of Mexico and Canada to change their practices and policies with respect to United States industry and products or cause businesses to alter their behavior or investments in a manner benefitting the plaintiffs. According to this view, any change in the policies of Mexico and Canada or in the practices of American businesses that the plaintiffs might foresee is purely speculative. As the plaintiffs must show that relief is “likely” to redress their injuries, the Government claims that they have failed to satisfy the third prong of the standing criteria as outlined in Lujan. The plaintiffs suggest that this court has the power and authority to grant a declaratory judgment that the procedures used to approve NAFTA are unconstitutional. They cite In re Aircrash in Bali 684 F.2d 1301, 1308-10 (9th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 917, 110 S.Ct. 277, 107 L.Ed.2d 258 (1989); United States v. Guy W Capps, Inc., 204 F.2d 655, 659-60 (4th Cir.1953), aff d. on other grounds 348 U.S. 296, 75 S.Ct. 326, 99 L.Ed. 329 (1955); and Swearingen v. United States, 565 F.Supp. 1019 (D.Colo.1983), as examples of cases in which federal courts have addressed the constitutionality of treaty provisions or asserted their authority to do so, and point out that, according to the Restatement (Third) of the Law of Foreign Relations of the United States, §§ 302-303 (1987) (hereinafter “Restatement”), § 326(2), “Courts in the United States have final authority to interpret an international agreement for purposes of applying it as law in the United States.” Thus, the plaintiffs argue that, given this court’s authority to rule on the constitutionality of the provisions of an international agreement, the argument that an order of this court declaring the procedures used to approve NAFTA unconstitutional would have no practical effect is clearly misguided. a. NAFTA/Implementation Act Distinction With Respect to Redressability The Government contends that a ruling declaring NAFTA itself unconstitutional would have no effect on the validity or enforceability of the Implementation Act and that, as the plaintiffs have asked for and can receive no more than such a declaration, they have no standing in this case. The plaintiffs contest this contention on the same bases they contest the Government’s claims with respect to the “causal connection” issue — they claim that they have, in fact, asked this court to declare both the Agreement and the Implementation Act unconstitutional and that, in any case, the two are indivisible. The plaintiffs also argue that, to the extent that this court concludes that the Agreement and Act are distinct and that it can only make a ruling with respect to NAFTA itself, such a ruling would sufficiently redress their injuries. In so arguing, the plaintiffs maintain that if this court declares NAFTA invalid as United States law, the Agreement’s self-executing provisions, cited above, will be invalidated. Furthermore, the plaintiffs assert that if NAFTA itself is held invalid, a number of the Implementation Act’s provisions will, by their own language, be rendered inoperative. Of primary significance among such provisions, according to the plaintiffs, is the Implementation Act’s threshold provision. The plaintiffs contend that the invalidation of this “key provision” would cause the remainder of the implementing legislation to become invalid under basic principles of severability. Under Scheinberg v. Smith, 659 F.2d 476, 481 (5th Cir.1981), the “controlling inquiry” for purposes of a severability analysis, “is whether the legislature intended the offensive statutory provision to be an integral part of the statutory enactment viewed in its entirety.” If so, the entire statute must be struck down. The principles of severability referenced by the plaintiffs would, according to the Government, not render the Implementation Act inoperative. The Government argues that even if this court did declare NAFTA itself (again, as opposed to the Implementation Act) unconstitutional under United States domestic law, the international obligation of the United States would remain, because this court, according to the Government, cannot direct the President to repudiate an international agreement. Thus, that the provisions of the Implementation Act that are dependent upon the completion of NAFTA would not, according to the Government, prevent the Implementation Act from taking effect. Plaintiffs reply to the Government’s contentions regarding the rule of severability as it applies to international obligations, arguing that the Government’s position has no basis in case law. Further, plaintiffs contend that even if the Government were to be correct about the effect of a valid international obligation on the legislation, the Government’s argument would still fail due to the fact that NAFTA, in the plaintiffs’ view, was designed not to go into effect until the necessary legal procedures in each nation were completed. According to plaintiffs, because the United States never completed those procedures, NAFTA never went into effect and never became binding under international law. b. The Court’s Power to Order the President to Perform an Act According to the Government, the President, in signing NAFTA, caused the agreement to become binding on the United States under international law. As noted above, the Government argues that this court lacks the authority to compel the President to abrogate an international obligation of the United States. While recognizing that in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 16-18, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957), the Supreme Court asserted its right and responsibility to declare whether an international agreement is constitutional or otherwise has effect as domestic law of the United States, the Government, citing Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 802-03, 112 S.Ct. 2767, 120 L.Ed.2d 636 (1992); Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 475, 501, 18 L.Ed. 437 (1866); and Swan v. Clinton, 100 F.3d 973, 976-77 (D.C.Cir.1996), maintains that courts do not have jurisdiction to direct or enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. The Government contends that the Supreme Court’s language in Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503, 509, 67 S.Ct. 1431, 91 L.Ed. 1633 (1947); Van Der Weyde v. Ocean Transp., Co., 56 S.Ct. 392, 297 U.S. 114, 118, 80 L.Ed. 515 (1936); Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U.S. 447, 474-76, 33 S.Ct. 945, 57 L.Ed. 1274 (1913) ; and Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U.S. 270, 283, 22 S.Ct. 484, 46 L.Ed. 534 (1902), supports its contention that courts cannot compel the President to terminate an agreement and abrogate obligations of the United States. Further, pointing to Flynn v. Shultz, 748 F.2d 1186 (7th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 830, 106 S.Ct. 94, 88 L.Ed.2d 77 (1985), the Government also makes the assertion that this court cannot impinge upon the President’s constitutional power by dictating how he will conduct this Nation’s foreign affairs. According to this view of presidential power, even if this court were to conclude that the procedure used to approve NAFTA is unconstitutional, the President, by virtue of his foreign affairs powers, would be able to exercise his judgment in determining how to react to such a ruling. The Government argues that the President’s right to exercise his discretion in choosing how to respond to a ruling of this court makes it far less likely that the plaintiffs’ injuries would be redressed by their desired relief, even if this court did have the- authority to grant such relief. c. The Judiciary’s Ability to Order Subordinate Executive Department Officials to Act or Refrain From Acting and the Effectiveness of Such an Order in this Case In addressing the Government’s assertion that this court may not order the President to communicate the United States’ withdrawal from NAFTA to Canada and Mexico, the plaintiffs not only argue that the issue of this court’s authority vis-a-vis the President is unsettled, but that such an order is not required to achieve the results they seek. The plaintiffs thus argue, based on the D.C. Circuit’s holding in Swan v. Clinton that this court may order subordinate executive officials not to enforce NAFTA’s provisions. In Swan, the plaintiff sought relief against the President and other executive branch officials, seeking to have his removal from the Board of the National Credit Union Administration declared unlawful. The plaintiff sought an injunction ordering the President to reinstate him and/or “such additional relief as the court shall deem just.” The court found that it was unclear whether or not it could order the President to reinstate a Presidential appointee who had been wrongfully dismissed. However, although the court acknowledged that the President alone had the authority to reinstate the plaintiff, the court found that it could get around the question of whether it could direct the President to act while still granting the plaintiff relief by ordering subordinate executive officials to act as if plaintiff had been reinstated. The court determined that this partial remedy would be sufficient for redressability “even recognizing that the President has the power, if he so chose, to undercut [the] relief.” In further examining the propriety of its re-dressability determination, the court stated: We do not believe that ... we are performing an end run around the redressa-bility requirement of standing doctrine. Rather, we are simply recognizing that such partial relief is sufficient for standing purposes when determining whether we can order more complete relief would require us to delve into complicated and exceptionally difficult questions regarding the constitutional relationship between the judiciary and the executive branch. Id. at 981. Thus, in the event that this court determines it is unable to directly order the President to terminate this Nation’s participation in NAFTA, the plaintiffs request an order instructing subordinate executive officials to cease their compliance with NAFTA’s provisions. The Government contends that the plaintiffs reliance on Swan v. Clinton is misplaced, arguing that this case is distinguishable from Swan in that, in order to provide the plaintiffs with redress, the relief in this case would have to run, in some instances, directly or indirectly against the President. For instance, the Government argues that only the President is given authority under the Implementation Act to make modifications to tariff rates pursuant to the provisions of NAFTA. An order directing subordinate officials to refuse to comply with NAFTA could, according to the Government, diminish the President’s authority under such provisions and could, therefore, not provide the plaintiffs substantial relief. Further, the Government asserts that any order directing government officials to cease the implementation and operation of the Implementation Act and, thus, NAFTA, amounts to an abrogation of the United States’ obligations under the Agreement — a decision that only the President is authorized to make. The Government argues that, given the Eleventh Circuit’s declaration that “[m]at-ters relating ‘to the conduct of foreign relations ... are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference,’ ” the combination of, (1) the plaintiffs’ failure to specify which officials should be enjoined and which provisions of the Implementing Act and/or regulations those officials should cease to enforce, and (2) the delicate issues of foreign relations implicated in this case, counsels strongly against this court’s finding standing in this case. The Government concedes that there are subordinate executive officials involved in the continued implementation and operation of NAFTA’s provisions. However, the Government notes that the plaintiffs’ complaint has failed to identify those officials who could be enjoined and that plaintiffs have failed to identify any specific provisions of the Implementation Act or regulations that the unidentified officials should cease to implement in order to redress the plaintiffs’ injuries. d. The “Likely” Reaction of Foreign Governments, Foreign Business and United States Executive Department Officials to a Declaration that NAFTA is Unconstitutional The plaintiffs argue that the Government’s contentions regarding the potential reaction of the Canadian and Mexican governments is flawed for two reasons. First, plaintiffs maintain that even if a declaration invalidating NAFTA had absolutely no effect on the trade policies of Canada and Mexico, they (the plaintiffs) would still have standing as a result of the influence such declaration would have under domestic law, as noted above. Second, the plaintiffs argue that the suggestion that the United States’ repudiation of NAFTA would have little or no influence on the policies of the other two parties involved in the agreement is far more unlikely and speculative than are plaintiffs’ predictions. The plaintiffs note that the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the President’s submission of NAFTA to Congress declared that NAFTA would “eliminate [ ] significant Mexican ... investment restrictions that have distorted investment flows ... for decades.” The Statement also proclaimed that “U.S. investors will be entitled to the same treatment in Mexico as Mexican investors and will be protected in the case of expropriation.” The Statement went on to claim that “Nothing about doing business in Mexico will be the same ... which is one of the key benefits of NAFTA, because doing business in Mexico until now has been so difficult.” Finally, the Statement asserted that, “Without NAFTA, it will be business as usual with Mexico. U.S. firms will continue to face ... investment requirements ... and a complete lack of certainty about the conditions of doing business in Mexico.” The plaintiffs thus argue that an order declaring NAFTA unconstitutional as a matter of United States law would clearly have an effect on Mexican trade policies with respect to the United States, noting that in Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978), the Supreme Court held that “a party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction [is not required to] negate ... speculative and hypothetical possibilities ... in' order to demonstrate the likely effectiveness of judicial relief.” This court’s authority to issue a declaratory judgment in this case redressing their injuries is, according to the plaintiffs, enough to satisfy the Supreme Court’s standing requirements. Plaintiffs note that in Powell v. McCormack, the Court considered a claim by a Congressman who alleged that he had been unlawfully excluded from the House of Representatives, and who sought declaratory, mandatory and injunctive relief against certain House members, officials and employees. The Court determined that the plaintiffs request for a declaration that his exclusion was unconstitutional was sufficient, standing alone, to render the case justiciable. Plaintiffs argue that in this case, as in Powell, the declaratory relief sought is sufficient to establish standing. The plaintiffs also argue that several other cases have found that a request for declaratory relief is sufficient to establish standing even when it is unclear as to whether or not the government actor will be bound by the declaration. For example, the plurality opinion in Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 112 S.Ct. 2767, 120 L.Ed.2d 636 (1992), determined that a request for declaratory relief against an agency satisfied the redressability requirement despite the fact that a declaration would not directly bind the President or the other relevant executive and congressional actors. The Court concluded that the declaration was substantially likely to redress the plaintiffs injury because the Court found that it was “substantially likely that the President and other[s] ... would abide by an authoritative” declaratory judgment. Thus, despite being arguably unable to definitively predict what all of the repercussions of an order declaring NAFTA unconstitutional might be, the plaintiffs argue that they have clearly established that the nullification of NAFTA would eliminate provisions that injured them. The purpose of NAFTA was to bring about a sweeping change in the terms and conditions under which companies do business in Canada, Mexico and the United States. It was recognized by the President that the changes made in United States-Mexico trade policies would not have come about without NAFTA. The Statement of Administrative Action clearly acknowledges that some Americans would lose jobs as a result of the implementation of NAFTA. In 1997, the International Trade Commission recognized that some sectors and regions of the United States had suffered job “dislocations” and earnings reductions as a result of NAFTA. The plaintiffs argue that the Court’s standing determination in Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (1997), repudiates the Government’s assertion that executive department officials might choose to ignore this court’s order. In Bennett, the Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had met their burden on the redressability element of the standing analysis despite questions as to whether the agency involved would conform to a court order, stating that the plaintiffs’ burden was “relatively modest at this stage of the litigation.” The Government maintains that the plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief is insufficient to confer standing in this case, as the plaintiffs are still unable to show that it is “substantially likely” that the declaration will redress their injuries. The Government notes that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not discharge the plaintiffs from their obligation to establish that their claim can be redressed by a favorable decision. The plaintiffs’ assertion that standing has been found to exist in cases where it was far from clear that the government actor involved would be bound by a court order is, according to the Government, patently false. The cases cited by the plaintiffs, comments the Government, all involved a finding that it was substantially likely that the government officials involved would abide by a declaratory judgment. Thus, in Bennett v. Spear, the Court found that the threat of substantial civil and criminal penalties had a “powerful coercive effect” on the agency involved, and therefore provided a sufficient prospect of remedial action. Similarly, the Court found in Franklin v. Massachusetts that it was “substantially likely that the President and other[s]” would abide by a declaratory judgment issued against the Secretary of Commerce. The Lujan decision, argues the Government, engages in an analysis that would be appropriate in this case. In Lujan, the Court found that because only the Secretary of the Interior would be bound by a decree (as the Secretary was the only named party), the decree sought by the plaintiffs would not redress their alleged injuries. The Government argues that even if NAFTA were declared unconstitutional, such declaration would not guarantee action by the governments of Canada and Mexico that would serve to remedy the injuries to plaintiffs’ lost jobs, wages, and benefits or the plaintiffs’ ability to purchase American-made goods. Along those lines, the Government alleges that, with respect to Mexico, the implementation of NAFTA was not the sole, nor necessarily the primary, factor in motivating American companies to move their operations to that country or in causing steelworkers to lose their jobs to Mexican workers. The Government points out that American steel manufacturers had, for some time before the implementation of NAFTA, been subject to the competitive pressure of European steelmakers, and that it is possible that the opening of the Mexican labor market did not replace American, but European, jobs. Further, noting the statements made by various congressmen in the Congressional Record, the Government asserts that American companies had been moving to Mexico well before the implementation of NAFTA. The Government argues that the plaintiffs’ arguments are even more tenuous with respect to Canada, noting that prior to the approval and implementation of NAFTA, the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement eliminated tariffs and eliminated or reduced other trade barriers between the two nations. Although the United States and Canada agreed to suspend the operation of the earlier agreement while both parties are participants in NAFTA, the suspension of NAFTA would cause the earlier agreement to once again come into force. Thus, the Government argues that the plaintiffs’ complaints regarding the movement of businesses to Canada will surely not be remedied by the eradication of NAFTA. The Government claims that Dellums v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 863 F.2d 968 (D.C.Cir.1988) and Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce v. Goldschmidt, 627 F.2d 258 (D.C.Cir.1980), illustrate that, in this case, the plaintiffs’ rebanee on the predicted actions of independent actors— the governments of Mexico and Canada and the heads of businesses- — makes a finding of redressabibty impossible. In Dellums, the D.C. Circuit considered a claim by an unemployed uranium miner in New Mexico who challenged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s- decision to grant a license to import uranium from South Africa. Recognizing that the miner’s inability to find employment constituted injury in fact, the court nonetheless found that the' plaintiff lacked standing because he did not and could not show that it was substantially likely that the relief he sought would redress his injury. The court found that the chain of inferences suggested by the plaintiff to show that a reversal of the regulatory commission’s decision would remedy his situation was too tenuous to satisfy the redressabibty element of the standing inquiry. The court noted that even if the commission were to ban the importation of uranium from South Africa into the United States and the plaintiff could show that such a ban would benefit the uranium mining industry in the United States as a whole, such a showing would still fall short of the requisite showing to establish standing. The court found that the plaintiff would have to show that the revival in the industry would occur in New Mexico (the plaintiffs home state) and that it would benefit him if it did. Thus, the court held that a plaintiff does not have standing “when the effectiveness of the relief requested depends on the unforeseeable actions of a foreign nation.” Similarly, in Goldschmidt the plaintiffs challenged the validity of an executive agreement regulating air travel between the United States and the United Kingdom, claiming that the agreement was invalid because it was a treaty that should have been submitted for Senate approval. The D.C. Circuit found that even if it did declare the agreement invalid, the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the United Kingdom would react by changing its demands or requirements, and that, therefore, the remedy was not substantially likely to redress the plaintiffs’ injuries. The Government asserts that, as in Del-lums and Goldschmidt, the plaintiffs have failed to show that declaring NAFTA unconstitutional would be substantially likely to cause Canada and Mexico to alter their trade policies or to cause American companies to return to or remain in the United States. Further, the Government alleges that the plaintiffs have failed to show that any such resurgence would truly remedy their injuries. This court’s inability to control or predict the actions of Canada and Mexico and thus, its inability to determine whether a given remedy will redress the plaintiffs’ injuries clearly shows that the plaintiffs lack standing in this case according to the Government. Further, according to the Government’s reading of Allen v. Wright, Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, and Dellums, a change in economic incentives alone, without a showing that the change is likely to lead to a reaction that redresses the alleged injury, is insufficient to establish standing. Thus, the Government argues that the plaintiffs must not only show that the relief they seek is likely to result in a change in economic incentives to American companies in the trade policies of the United States, Mexico and Canada, they must also establish that the American companies that have moved or might move their operations to Canada or Mexico will either return to or remain in 'the United States. . The plaintiffs argue that the Government’s reliance on Dellums and Gold-schmidt is misplaced. In Dellums, the plaintiffs contended that a ban on the importation of uranium hexafloride, when combined with existing sanctions against South Africa, would “be the proverbial ‘straw that breaks the camel’s back’ and lead to the collapse of the apartheid system.” The court in Dellums found that it was completely implausible to suggests that halting the import