Posted on 05/23/2015 10:44:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The Canadian approach to free trade has been to do a series of bilateral agreements. It seems many Freepers would be more agreeable to that approach as it is less likely to lead to a loss of sovereignty than a multinational agreement. The more parties to the agreement the more likely something leading to a loss of sovereignty will be included.
Free trade agreements have been congressional-executive agreements that only require a majority in both houses. They are not treaties such as the “Treaties Clause” would stand over. The Supreme Court looked at the issue with NAFTA and they didn’t even both wasting their time on it.
They were correct IMO, and I really don’t care if you disagree.
From what I understand...with the “new powers” given to the executive branch in regards to trade deals the language makes it so the congress can only vote yea or ney with no authority to change or remove any provisions in agreements....illegal to vote away the congress’s authority....treason.
Why the hell did Boehner and McConnell run for re-election if they don’t want to wield the power that comes with the office? Instead of wielding their power they are yielding their power.
Boehner a traitor?!?
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
Free trade helped bring down the British Empire.
It is destroying us.
That is, at the very least, a misrepresentation of what the USSC did.
The declined to hear the case because it was "nonjudiciable". Essentially, they decided that what constitutes a treaty is what Congress and POTUS agrees constitutes a treaty.
That this is not something in the purview of the Judicial Branch, it's a political question.
Just like Obamacare.
Is that a decision you also support on a legal basis?
If its a secret by definition it is bad. Why would the terms of a trade treaty need to be secret? The answer is there is no reason for it to be secret except if we knew about it we would all oppose it.
“And why reward obama with this power after he assumed the powers of the congress!”
Millions of dollars from corporate backers does that to some people.
How bizarre is it that Senator Orrin Hatch blocked left wing Senator Elizabeth Warren’s attempt to make the trade bill open to the public.
“Elizabeth Warren’s demand for public disclosure of trade deals ran into an obstacle Thursday in the form of Sen. Orrin Hatch.
Hatch, the Utah Republican who leads the Senate Finance Committee, blocked legislation from Warren and fellow Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin that would have let the public see details of trade deals before they are allowed to be “fast tracked” through Congress. The White House has insisted it can’t finalize the terms of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership unless Congress agrees to fast track first. Fast track gives trade deals an up-or-down vote with no amendments, and is a major part of President Barack Obama’s trade agenda.”
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hatch-blocks-elizabeth-warren-on-trade-deal-transparency-2015-05-22
Why the secrecy then?
There is no secrecy surrounding the TPA that was just voted on by the GOP (including Cruz). The contents of the TPA are out there for you to read. The previous TPA expired in 2007. Democratic CongressesThis is nothing new.
There was secerecy involved the negotiations of the TPP. The TPA, a procedural tool, clears the way for the TPP to NOT be secret. Every single
It is mindblowing how many myths are out there about this. If people would take the time to read and learn about it, we wouldn’t have this confusion.
I agree with you that the whole thing is bizarre.
Go back to K-Street
The reason given for the lack of transparency is that the trade agreement establishes frameworks for trade negotiations that are on-going. The U.S. doesn’t want to give away its bargaining positions in dealing with other nations by making everything public.
Any Senator or Representative who wants to read the whole bill can go to a special room in the Capitol and read it.
Here’s a link to an article that describes the process that members of Congress go through to read the bill: “A Trade Deal Read In Secret By Only A Few (Or Maybe None)”
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/14/406675625/a-trade-deal-read-in-secret-by-only-few-or-maybe-none
So you have no arguments? I’m not surprised. I’ve yet to see a protectionist have an argument to those points. You’d have been the first.
Yes, while letting stand the lower court's ruling that extending Trade Promotion Authority to the executive branch falls within Congress' constitutional authority to regulate trade under the Commerce Clause.
They are wielding plenty of power, just not what they promised to use their power for. In other words they lied their @zz off.
I don’t recall many congressional Republicans ever saying that they opposed this particular Free Trade Agreement. The negotiations for this one began in 2005 during the Bush Administration.
Under President Bush, Congress approved Trade Agreements with:
Jordan: Jordan–United States Free Trade Agreement (2001)
Australia: Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (2004)
Chile: Chile–United States Free Trade Agreement (2004)
Singapore: Singapore–United States Free Trade Agreement (2004)
Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA; including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic (2005)
Bahrain: Bahrain–United States Free Trade Agreement (2006)
Morocco: Morocco-United States Free Trade Agreement (2006)
Oman: Oman–United States Free Trade Agreement (2006)
Peru: Peru–United States Trade Promotion Agreement (2007)
Thanks JimRob.
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.