Posted on 06/15/2015 6:49:32 PM PDT by MN_Mike
Edited on 06/15/2015 11:46:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Congress is expected to vote soon on whether to grant trade promotion authority (TPA) to President George W. Bush. Some critics of TPA have suggested that it might compromise national sovereignty and may actually be unconstitutional. But an important aspect of national sovereignty is the right to enter into international agreements and to participate in their enforcement. Being bound by agreements, such as mutual defense treaties, does not weaken sovereign power even though it obligates nations to abide by these pacts while they are a party to them.
Another aspect of sovereignty is the right of nations to withdraw from treaties that no longer suit them, although nations do not abandon most treaties over minor disagreements or unforeseen circumstances. America's NATO allies are now in a situation they never imagined: helping patrol our skies with NATO surveillance planes. Even as they shoulder this obligation, their assistance does not diminish their sovereignty or America's in any way. In fact, the NATO Treaty still makes each nation stronger than it would be by itself...
Continued here: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/11/why-trade-promotion-authority-is-constitutional
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUuKvuqrfnc
Regardless of the issue, in general, Obama does NOT NEED any more power TO ABUSE. He will if he gets it.
There is an ENORMOUS difference between Bush and Obama. Obama has proven time after time he hates America and IS DOING all he can possibly do to destroy the U.S. He should be given NO AUTHORITY to even buy toilet paper for the White House without it passing a National Security Scrutiny!
It ay be constitutional, or it may be a legal perversion of the founders intent, but I know one thing.
Obama badly wanted it. Obama has been trying to achieve something in TPP. Anything Obama is trying to achieve, I am against. I have never seen a single thing he has lead to pass that I agree with or is good for America.
That alone is enough reason to stop it at the earliest possible step of the process. Period.
A very interesting and convincing read.
Here is my objection to the CURRENT debate in four paragraphs:
The sitting occupant of the Oval Office is thoroughly and totally untrustworthy. I can imagine him (or, more rightly, the bureaucrats in the State and Commerce Departments) cutting a deal with nations that seem to be economically beneficial. Within those agreements, though, would be poison pills that harm the moral and social framework of our nation—or, perhaps, the other nation.
Then this current narcissist occupant of the Oval Office is joined by a chorus of media amplifiers who INSIST that the trade agreement MUST be approved because “it will lower the unemployment rate by 4 percentage points” or “top economists say it is a great plan” or “it will save the environment” or “it will lower insurance premiums by $2500 a year”!
And, given the weakness of the current Republican party to say NO to Obama, even after two mid-term elections where they were GIVEN THAT MANDATE, then we need not give Valerie’s man child such power.
The executive branch currently concocted has no respect for the separation of powers, and the current legislative branch has no testicular fortitude to reject bad propositions put forward by the executive.
So why pass TPA now?
I am not against TPA per se, but I am against Obama being given any further power to do anything at all.
And I further do not trust this secret legislation garbage associated with TPP.
I do not want any part of a government that operates that way, and I won’t vote for anyone that supports business being done that way.
It would be constitutional for Congress to vote for every stupid idea that came down the pike.
Totally agree!
Oh come on now, Ted Cruz and now the Heritage foundation is for the Trade Promotion Authority ?
They are a bunch of commie globalist sellouts working for Obama I tell ya !
That’s it !
The Heritage Foundation just lost my vote !
Sarcasm Irony.
THE CRUZ HATERS PROPAGANDIST REGURGITATORS HAVE BEEN OFFICALLY PUNKED BY BAGHDAD BOB CUTIS , A DEMOCRAT LIBERAL OPERATIVE !
YOU,VE BEEN PUNKED !
NOW GO CELEBRATE EGG ON FACE DAY CRUZ HATERS REGURGATATORS !
Politico is reporting that the second vote will not happen tomorrow.
I.e. The votes are not there.
In fact, it looks like the DC Elites including RINO’s and fake conservatives
are running for tall grass on Obamatrade.
It bad enough that the RINO’s and fake conservatives voted for Obamatrade once already.
But to have to vote yes again on Obamatrade.
No wonder they are running for tall grass.
The isn’t strictly about TPA. If Boehner and McConnell had a record of acting like an opposition, or if Obama didn’t ignore limits on Executive power, there would have been some grumbling, but this TPA would have passed without huge fanfare.
That said, here’s a more detailed explanation and history of the Constitutional issues in trade agreements:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html
We need to spell it out to those who don’t read or care to research.
Its : Trade that starts with a T
Promotion that starts with a P
Authority that starts with a A
We can no longer use TPA because it confuses many, so we need to spell it out for them.
Trade Promotion Authority
Now let’s practice that class.
Trade Promotion Authority
Trade Promotion Authority
Trade Promotion Authority
Good now, your getting it.
Keep practicing
BRAVO! Case closed.
Can’t use past precedent of the SCOTUS, of past typical rules of the House or the Senate, or even the frayed Constitution, or even George Washington to paint the lips of this dog of an agreement under a president like Barack Obama. He intends to twist the tail of the USA and everyone with a brain knows it.
All this means that with our luck, it will probably pass this week and the subsequent agreement will be owned by Obama for another year and a half, thanks to the R’s and the D’s who oddly and repetitively enable the executive branch right when they are on the ropes. Same with Obamacare.
A lot of dialogue, but NO real push back.
We as citizens have the right to try to convince our representatives to vote Yea or Nay on each trade deal that is negotiated by the president and comes before the congress.
It would be easier for us to make a recommendation if we were dealing with a single country that we felt was trading fairly or not.
I realize that sometimes regional trade pacts seem to make more sense, but it would be difficult or closer to impossible for any citizen to educate himself enough to know what to say to his representatives.
Even with nation-to-nation treaties it appears we got lied to with regard to our recent deal with South Korea. How much more screwed are we going to be by a TPP or TISA which involves over a dozen nations?
As legal as trusts and monopolies. Treaties are like gun control, they only engage those that believe in it
My post spoke to the constitutionality of TPA.
TPA has existed since the 1930s.
Ed Meese is the greatest AG in a century.
I trust his and Ted Cruz judgment.
But there is no difference in the Constitutiinality of TPaa, the topic of this post.
Aliens have overtaken our planet?
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.