Posted on 12/01/2015 2:17:24 PM PST by Kaslin
If we have learned anything about legislation over the past fifty years, it's that pleasant-sounding legislative statements can be used by the courts and by the Executive Branch to spin complex and intrusive regulatory regimes. Title IX (sex discrimination in schools), the National Environmental Policy Act (environmental impact statements), Title VII (affirmative action), and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (expansive and dangerous educational services for bad children) all took nicey-nice legislative language, which seemed innocuous at passage -- and used it to massively enhance the role of the courts and the Executive Branch.
So what are we to make of the Labor and Environmental commitments, which the U.S. would make under the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?
We know that Barack Obama has been working feverishly to establish liberal policies in these areas, and has thus far been thwarted by Congress. We also know that the TPP, if approved by Congress, would have, at the very least, the force of statute.
We know that Obama would like to leave an irreversible legacy in the areas of labor and the environment. And we know that he has been endlessly creative -- often to the point of illegality -- in devising means to sidestep congressional gridlock.
So what are we to make of language in Article 19:3 that "Each Party [and the U.S. would be a "party" upon approval] shall adopt and maintain in its statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, the following rights..." The effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining"?
[Emphasis added]
Or this in the same article: "Each Party shall adopt and maintain statutes and regulations, and practices thereunder, governing acceptable conditions of work with respect to minimum wages..."?
Although "organizing" and "minimum wage" "rights" may have been laid out in the International Labor Organization Declaration, this new commitment to adopt new statutes, regulations, and practices gives Obama (and perhaps Clinton) power beyond anything they currently have to set a minimum wage and dramatically expand union "rights." And the decisions concerning the breadth of their powers would be made by Obama-packed courts.
Furthermore, Article 19:4 (Non Derogation) attempts to make it illegal to "weake[n] or reduc[e] the protections afforded in each Party's labour laws."
Given that a statute can empower the administration to set the minimum wage and set union organizing specifics -- and given that the TPP would have the force of statute -- and given that the TPP specifically mandates that an acceptable minimum wage and effective labor rights be set by statute and regulations and practices, is anyone foolish or brazen enough to argue that this language does not give Obama and Clinton the right to set these things through executive action?
The article in the environment is equally troublesome.
The "general commitments" in Article 20:3 include, among other things, the obligation of each party to "strive to ensure that its environmental laws and policies provide for, and encourage, high levels of environmental protection..."
As broad as it is, this is a far clearer authorization of environmental executive action than the predicates, which Obama is currently using to attempt to regulate CO2 emission and coal-fired plants.
George Will has opined that it is "over climate change that Congress will finally find its footing and say 'Executive power stops here.'"
But for Congress to stop executive abuse of power, it will first have to stop delegating that power.
So here's where we are: Under the Trade Promotion Authority bill passed earlier this year, Congress must pass all of the TPP or totally reject it. Given the TPP's delegation of broad executive power over the minimum wage, labor law, and the environment, Congress should reject it.
The Democrats will try anything to Grab Power
They won't. Too many people have paid too much money to too many politicians for this thing to fail.
Obamacare, ALL OVER AGAIN.
And thank Cruz and others for giving him fasttrack to do this. Great job Cruz. /s
Add Cruz’s “Pathway to Amnesty” for the 40+ MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS...
Patriots, please consider that both the Supreme Court and Thomas Jefferson, based on his experience as VP, had clarified the following limits on the federal governments constitutionally delegated power to negotiate treaties. The feds cannot use their constitutional power to negotiate treaties as a way to bypass the Constitutions Article V requirement for state ratification of new amendments to the Constitution which grant the feds specific new powers.
From the writings of Thomas Jefferson . . .
”In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” - Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
”Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” - Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812.
And from the Supreme Court . . .
"2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is "necessary and proper" to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution [emphasis added].” - Reid v. Covert, 1956.
Patriots need to elect a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress in November.
Cruz did not vote for Fast Track. Cloture does not send any bill to the Presidents desk. The bill that went to Obama had a “No” vote by Cruz.
Obamacare, ALL OVER AGAIN, times 100
TPP mandates unionized card check? NO!
That’ll drive much our US economy into the “underground” sector, as Greece has experienced due to higher taxation.
NOT HAPPENING!!
That's what communism does to people.
Cloture was and always is the the key Vote ?
He is nit fooling us here .
He did not need to vote on the final bill because thanks to Him the senate needed only a simple Majority of 51 to pass Tpa which was written in a manner to guaranteed TPP will pass. Now TPP
will pass needing only a simple majority vs the constitutional laws requiring 66 votes !
Cruz actually Created that clause that wiped out the Super majority of 66 votes.
Cruz added the Simple majority clause while he sat on the senate committee overseeing this traitorous treaty.
He wrote a Wsj column with the ultra evil Paul La RAza Ryan peddling
this monster.
With 20 Republicans currently against the TPP deal, it does not have the votes to pass.
The Fast Track bill had the votes to get out of committee without Cruz, so the cloture argument does not hold water.
Cruz voted against TPA, period.
Fast Track Authority (TPA) has been around for 80 years. In that time, only one President did not have Fast Track Authority. The simple majority clause has always been a part of TPA, so don’t try that B.S. here.
Read all about how Ted Cuz added the clause to Tpa-tpp to fast track for his wife's clients at Goldman Sachs .
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/page/2/
Try spinning away now ! So stop trying to misinform people here.
The government doesn’t have the right to set any hourly rate, any salary or any pay.
All other discussions are useless.
If what you said was true, then TPA didn’t matter at all. TPP would pass on its own. You’re wrong, of course, but that hasn’t stopped you so far.
I suggest you read the text of the 2002 TPA Fast Track. Cruz didn’t write that clause. It has always been a part of Fast Track Authority.
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.