Posted on 05/21/2015 10:25:07 AM PDT by Mariner
ith the Senate poised to vote to end debate on Obama’s fast-track trade legislation, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is continuing his assault on the effort.
Wednesday, Sessions took on arguments for the trade deal with a series of what he office says are “myths” versus “truths” about the trade deal under consideration in Congress.
In the myth buster account, Sessions’ office says not only will fast-track erode congressional power over the trade process but the trade agreements implemented under that authority will trump U.S. law.
Myth: Trade agreements implemented under fast-track will not supersede existing U.S. law.
Truth: Every trade agreement negotiated by the President and foreign governments is accompanied by implementing legislation which necessarily supersedes existing law. Proponents of fast-track are relying on semantics: the trade agreement itself will not supersede existing law, but the “fast-tracked” legislation implementing the trade agreement will. What’s more, the Trans-Pacific Partnership—which would be fast-tracked by TPA—will give jurisdiction to international tribunals to settle disputes between parties to the agreement.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
He's probably the only real American in the Senate.
And we need more documents to prove TYRANNY ,
and violation of Oath of Office ??
McConnell, McQueeg, Graham, MurKOWski, Flake, Kirk, Coats, Collins, Cochran, Ayotte, Thune, Alexander, Corker, Cornyn, Johnson, Hatch ... and other assorted squishy cowardly friends.
All Freepers who adore Cruz need to get on the phone. He is going to vote for it, along with most of the Republicans. The trade deal empowers Obama, it renders Congress powerless in trade deals, it overrides the Constitution, it will enable the displacement of American workers (why do you think Obama wants it), it requires trust in Obama(?). Again, Cruz will vote for it, along with most of our Republican heroes. Any Republican who votes for this is a sham, I don’t care what his name is.
Cruz has already voted to keep this moving in Senate TWICE.
Cruz does not hide from these votes. He is an unashamed free-trader and advocates for increased legal immigration.
I am baffled as to how he thinks such a thing as Free Trade exists...or that increased legal H1B immigration is good for the country.
Baffled.
I think maybe he knows jack about economics and is caught up in traditional GOP lore.
I am not willing to accept he may be complicitly evil and self-serving.
“I think maybe he knows jack about economics and is caught up in traditional GOP lore.”
That would require him to totally ignore Senator Sessions, the stats on manufacturing jobs lost overseas, the permanent flipping of California to the democrat party, the dying American economy, etc. Can he think?
I don't think he is evil. But, he certainly follows the interest of business. Just like he and many other Republicans supported the .gov terrorism insurance plan. TRIA.
Perhaps he's learned from Mitch McConnell that he can vote for cloture and to keep a bill moving, then vote no on the final...and be able to claim he voted against the travesty.
But, in case you didn't know, there are thousands of Cruz supporters and some sycophants on this forum.
Any harsh criticism of Cruz should be avoided or obliquely delivered. It's stirs passionate response by powerful members who have the ability to zot you.
Major constitutional problems with treaties are traceable back to the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A) imo. More about 17A later.
Is Sen. Sessions aware that both Thomas Jefferson and the Supreme Court had clarified the following limits on the Senate’s power to negotiate treaties? Congress cannot use the Senate’s power to negotiate treaties as a back door to force citizens or businesses to comply with foreign laws based on powers which the states have never delegated to Congress expressly via the Constitution.
“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 here’s the relevant Supreme Court case opinion excerpt.
“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 .
The following excerpt from another case opinion also applies to treaties imo.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The reason that the Founding States established the federal senate and gave the power to vote for senators uniquely to state lawmakers was so that senators would protect their respective states in Congress.
However, the Progressive Movement spooked low-information voters to pressure state lawmakers to ratify the ill-conceived 17th Amendment. And state lawmakers caved in and ratifed 17A, foolishly giving up the voices of state lawmakers in Congress by doing so.
The problem now is that low-information voters go home after voting for their favorite senators and watch football, clueless to the major problem that their corrupt senators are ignoring both Jefferson and the Supreme Court by unconstitutionally expanding the federal government’s power through treaties.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and a bunch of corrupt senators along with it.
I have to pinch myself to remember that the Judicial branch hears cases and applies the law, but does not make law, (or execute the law).
Is that incorrect, or just laughable in my case?
They are just closing their eyes ad wishing it away.
I must say I am troubled by Ted Cruz’s vote for cloture today.
I can’t believe these ******** passed this. And only 5 Republicans voted against it. How I wished we had many more like Sessions.
A part of the problem is that probably most voters were probably never taught the difference between legislative and judicial powers. This makes it easier for activist justices to get away with amending the Constitution from the bench.
I agree in principle. But I think that lawless Obama is going to do anything that he wants to anyway.
Lee
Paul
Collins
Sessions
Shelby
That's it, and only ONE POTUS Candidate: Paul.
With his opposition to NSA spying and this, he has jumped way up in my consideration for the office.
Unfortunately, he's an Amnesty supporter like the rest.
But, how about those Alabama Senators?
U RAH!
“he can vote for cloture and to keep a bill moving, then vote no on the final...and be able to claim he voted against the travesty.”
Why would he want to keep a bill moving if he did not like it? Sessions does not like the bill and he voted against cloture. I remember when I was a kid I heard an old politician explain the cloture vote flim flam which is how they can “be able to claim he voted against the travesty” as you accurately write. I use to be a big Cruz supporter until he came out for more legal immigration and more H-1B visa workers. Would these people who love Cruz so much volunteer to give up their job to H-1B workers? Drudge had a report on Disney yesterday about people having to train their replacements who came in from India. It would, in fact, be interesting to see someone try to justify Cruz on the trade vote. We have reality colliding with theory.
I've seen it attempted a couple of times, as this is not the first vote on this matter in Senate.
It's not pretty when they do.
The United States, Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam.
And perhaps China at some point.
On copyrights
http://tppinfo.org/
Hundreds of Tech Companies Line Up to Oppose TPP Trade Agreement
Letter signed by more than 250 companies demands greater transparency and says ‘dangerously vague’ language would criminalize whistleblowers.
http://verisign.comz.cssww.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/hundreds-tech-companies-line-oppose-tpp-trade-agreement
The All-Too-Real Costs Of Free Trade To Average Americans
http://transpacificpartnership.org/
The Internet
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Would Promote
Off-Shoring of American Jobs
http://www.exposethetpp.org/TPPImpacts_OffshoringUSJobs.html
Medicines forecast to cost taxpayers millions more in secret TPP trade deal
Leaked draft of Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement includes patenting standards that would delay cheaper drugs, Medical Journal of Australia reports
Don’t know about gun provisions. Alex Jones says it bans small arms
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.