Posted on 06/17/2015 9:45:26 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Not lately...
Sadly, there are many FReepers who consider this windbag Trump a serious candidate and do not realize he is the joke that he obviously is.
I don’t have to provide you anything. You are a grownup, look it up yourself.
That is not the question. Better at what? My top 2 guys I like are Walker and Cruz.
Thanks SoConPubbie.
There are some issues that cannot be ignored. Giving Obama more power and losing our sovereignty are not okay, or no big deal.
Cruz made it clear that what is being done with TPA is constitutional and has been going on for many administrations.
It is TPP and the actual trade deals we need to worry about.
Totally false, as Watson and I explained last year:
FTAs embody unenforceable promises governments make to each other. Domestic governmentshere, Congressretain the sole authority to ignore those promises and violate international commitments, and they (unfortunately) do so frequently. Foreign governments cannot force their trading partners to comply with the terms of an FTAthe only extra-national consequence of a violation is that other parties to the agreement may abrogate their commitments in a commensurate amount (e.g., by raising tariffs on imports from the United States from levels that were lowered in the FTA). Moreover, every U.S. trade agreement permits the parties to act outside the agreed disciplines in the name of, among other things, national security, public health and safety, or environmental protection. Thus, the idea that TPA and FTAs violate U.S. sovereignty or regulatory autonomy is patently false.
These principles hold true for the TPP, including its dispute settlement and controversial investor-state provisions. Despite what Warren (and some media outlets) would like you to believe, there is nothingabsolutely nothingthat can force the United States to comply with an adverse dispute settlement ruling issued under the TPP or any other U.S. trade agreement. Period.
But, hey, if you dont believe me, heres Attorney General Meese again:
Future trade deals would not be unconstitutional, nor would they undermine U.S. sovereignty, if they contained an agreement to submit some disputes to an international tribunal for an initial determination. The United States will always have the ultimate say over what its domestic laws provide. No future agreement could grant an international organization the power to change U.S. laws.
A ruling by an international tribunal that calls a U.S. law into question would have no domestic effect unless Congress changes the law to comply with the ruling. If Congress rejects a ruling or fails to act, other countries might impose a trade sanction or tariff, but they are more likely to impose high tariffs now without any agreement. The fact remains that no international body or foreign government may change any American law. Moreover, Congress may override an entire agreement at any time by a simple statute. Nations also may withdraw from international agreements by executive action alone. That is one reason why such agreements do not interfere with the underlying sovereignty of each nation to chart its own course in the world. In short, the U.S. Constitution and any laws and treaties we enact in accordance thereto are the only supreme law of our land.
If thats not clear enough for you, then I dont know what is.
Totally false. As already noted above (and reiterated here by Catos Dan Ikenson and here by the Congressional Research Service), Congress under TPA retains total control over the international trade authority granted to it by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Any trade agreement negotiated by the president (which he has constitutional authority to do under Article II) still must be approved by Congress.
As noted by the CRS, TPA reflects decades of debate, cooperation, and compromise between Congress and the executive branch in finding a pragmatic accommodation to the exercise of each branchs respective authorities over trade policy. It represents a gentlemans agreement between the legislative branch and the executive branchwith the former promising the latter fast track rules for the requisite congressional approval of an FTA, if, and only if, the latter (i) agrees to follow a detailed set of congressional negotiating objectives for the agreements content; and (ii) engages in a series of consultations with Congress on that content. As discussed more fully below, each branch of government retains its constitutional authority to abandon this gentlemans agreement, but doing so will essentially kill any hope of signing and implementing new FTAs. So, with limited exceptions, Congress and the executive toe the line.
Because neither branch gets expansive new powers or short-changed, Congress has granted every U.S. president since FDR some form of trade negotiating authority (source):
Pretty boring when you think about it, huh?
It requires only 51 votes rather than over 60. Thi will be a real Obama enabler. They can also offer no amendments.
Love it!
EVERYONE who has written about this, with the exception of a few, have said the same thing.
The seed of doubt was planted by a Leftist...and many on here, most with agendas, fell for it.
I think we should be more concerned about AMERICAN than conservative.
Donald Trump says more American things than Ted Cruz
Not promoting Trump over Cruz but pointing out the language being used
Words DO mean something and Americans ARE looking for a Patton ...... imo
Walker and Cruz are my top two too.
Walker/Cruz I like b/c it puts Cruz in DC for life. First as an amazing vp who will be quite capable then as a president then he must be appointed to the SC.
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.