Posted on 06/18/2015 7:31:11 AM PDT by SatinDoll
U.S. President Barack Obama’s proposed ‘Trade’ deals are actually about whether the world is heading toward a dictatorial world government — a dictatorship by the hundred or so global super-rich who hold the controlling blocks of stock in the world’s largest international corporations — or else toward a democratic world government, which will be a global federation of free and independent states, much like the United States was at its founding, but global in extent. These are two opposite visions of world government; and Obama is clearly on the side of fascism, an international mega-corporate dictatorship, as will be documented here in the links, and explained in the discussion.
Also as a preliminary to the discussion here is the understanding that if Obama wins Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, then all of his ‘trade’ deals will be approved by Congress and then be able to be considered seriously by other governments, and that if he fails to receive this Authority, then none of them will.
“Fast Track,” as will be explained in depth here, is, indeed, the “open Sesame” for Obama, on the entire matter. Without it, his deals don’t stand even a chance of passage.
I previously wrote about why it’s the case that “‘Fast Track’ Violates the U.S. Constitution.” The details of the case are presented there; but, to summarize it here: “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority,” which was introduced by the imperial President Richard M. Nixon in the Trade Act of 1974, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause — the clause that says “The President … shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” (In other words: otherwise, the President simply doesn’t have that power, the President cannot “make treaties.” Nixon wanted to make treaties without his needing to have two-thirds of the Senate vote “Yea” on them.) Fast Track abolishes that two-thirds requirement and replaces it by a requirement such as that for normal laws, of only a majority of the Senate approving, 50%(+1, which would be Vice President Joe Biden, so all that will actually be needed would be just that 50%). Obama’s ‘trade’ deals don’t stand a chance of receiving the approval of two-thirds of the U.S. Senate.
[snip]
I have tried in the past couple years to present the international problem with global corporations and the NWO.
Eric Zuesse does a superb job at addressing it.
“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
Trade bill involve revenue that result from tariffs. While one can argue that the Treaty Requirements of the Constitution should apply to Trade Bills one can just as easily claim that the Origination Clause is applicable.
Currently the reality is that you cannot get a 2/3 majority in the Senate to agree on what day of the week it is let alone a Trade "Treaty". That and the legal applicability of the Origination Clause is the basis for "Fast Track". The author of the article should know that. I'm sure he does. Most good Democrats do.
We are a Nation that has a Constitution and up until bambaboy, we have pretty well lived by it...
Beings most senators and representative, and polictial candidates are for passing this, I don't feel they are Presidental worthy for the fact they will do damage to our nation in the future...
Bkmrk.
Did you read the entire article, or are you just a poseur?
These ‘trade agreements’ are actually treaties. They override our sovereign laws. This is a way to banish the first 10 amendments to our Constitution, especially the First and Second.
I read the article. The author is wrong.
That’s it? The author is wrong?
Did you know before that Obama worked for the CIA? As to whether he still is working for them, that question now seems moot; he is working for his own acquisition of wealth.
What things in this article do you view as inaccurate?
Consider your bedfellows who, like you, oppose TPA:
Al Jazeera US
The Trade Unions
The Environmentalists
The Far Far Left
Bernie Sanders
Nancy Pelosi
Martin O’Malley
And, I’m betting, Hillary Clinton
On my side:
Ronald Reagan
Ted Cruz
A majority of Americans
An even bigger majority of Republicans
You might really ask yourself this question:
“Is what’s good for Al Jazeera good for AmerIca?”
I don’t think so. Perhaps you do. You are on the same side as they are on this issue.
You’re evading my question, but I will tell you I do not care who is against, or supports, these treaties. My reason for opposing them is the timing - the President should not at this moment, late in his second term, be granted what are basically dictatorial powers over treaties.
These, my friend, are not ‘Trade Agreements’: they are Treaties that will override our laws, and Obama hates the United States. Never forget that fact.
On a slightly friendlier note: RE: The possible Constitutional violation of the TPA legislation.
I too suspected an issue. As noted in my earlier post the point Ted Cruz makes is that the existence of revenue collection in these trade agreements is sufficient grounds for a legal TPA/TPP bill originating in the House. For me that was almost enough. What I wanted see and cannot find is a court challenge to TPP legislation and some decision. This type of legislation has been with us for well over 40 years, plenty of time for the law suits to fly.
Where are they?
I find no challenges and no decisions. Lots of legal arguments for and against but no big court cases. The cases cited in your article seem to me and apparently to the author of the article to be very weak. In any case the lack of an on-the-mark challenge to TPA seems odd for something this controversial.
You dig deep. Maybe you know something I don’t. But lacking a successful legal challenge to TPA/TPP seems to me to be a green light for Congress to pass it if they choose to do so.
But the argument in favor of treating all trade bills as treaties is, I admit, quite strong. But apparently not strong enough to win a decisive court case.
And lastly, I am very strong believer that these trade pacts help Americans. So I favor them. I just don’t buy the Giant Corporation global conspiracy nonsense for a minute.
See my previous post.
A Treaty cannot usurp the Constitution. Then it would be an amendment and require State ratification.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, “this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,” although the case itself was with regard to an executive agreement, not a “treaty” in the U.S. legal sense, and the agreement itself has never been ruled unconstitutional.
Your ‘my side’ list is missing one huh? You know, the Kenyan born Marxist, America hating muslim, Barry Soetoro?
True. What can I say?
My vision of World Government is..... NO!
Hey! I’m with you on this. And damn it, they passed it earlier today.
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.