Could Conservatives Push TPA Over the Finish Line?

Roll Call ^ | May 22nd, 2015 | By Matt Fuller

[Theoria]

'After this is passed, Senators will simply need to vote down the agreement and reauthor it if they want a new vote.'

They didn't author this bill...It has been negotiated without the interest of me and other persons. Do I or you have a say in the forming of bills? My Congressman cannot change the bill, but merely vote for it, yes or no. That does not represent the commons, but the lobbyist and other trading partners.

[ek_hornbeck]

The fact that so few GOP Senators voted against TPP goes to show yet again that the Republican Party is all about fake opposition. They’re always full of bluff and bluster about how much they oppose Obama and the Democrats’ agenda, and may fight him on lesser issues to create a public spectacle, but on issues that actually count, like trade and immigration, Obama’s so-called “opposition” now marches lockstep with him. Surprised? I’m not. That’s what happens when you have a single political party masquerading as two.

[Yosemitest]

Let's see how TED CRUZ VOTES on FINAL PASSAGE, and IF his amendment stands, or gets removed.
How can I speak on the whole bill, when no one without clearance can read the whole bill ?
But to me, IMMIGRATION and AMNESTY is KEY.
I'm also strongly AGAINST LEGALIZATION OF "POT" AND ANY OTHER ILLEGAL DRUGS (No vote for PAUL) .

[Starstruck]

Let's see how TED CRUZ VOTES on FINAL PASSAGE, and IF his amendment stands, or gets removed. How can I speak on the whole bill, when no one without clearance can read the whole bill ? But to me, IMMIGRATION and AMNESTY is KEY. I'm also strongly AGAINST LEGALIZATION OF "POT" AND ANY OTHER ILLEGAL DRUGS (No vote for PAUL)

Capitalization is like liberals yelling their point.

[Roland]

What they fail to mention in most of these articles is that fast track also changes the requirement for treaties from 2/3rds to a simple majority. This trade agreement will never happen without fast track. If TPA (fast track) is passed there will be no other debate and TPP will become law. It may even allow a few Senators to be on record voting against it knowing full well that it will have 51 votes anyway. I suspect that Cruz will be in this category since he already voted for fast track.

[Yosemitest]

SO!

[RKBA Democrat]

When it comes to certain issues, the uniparty brooks no dissent. Whoring out America to so called “free trade” is just one of those issues.

Lots of dramatic theatre for public consumption, but the die has already been cast.

[Starstruck]

So!

SO WHAT

[conservativejoy]

I trust Cruz, too. He is supporting the 2.2 million jobs in his state that rely on exports.

[Yosemitest]

TED CRUZ knows what he's doing, and he's more likely to protect jobs for United States Citizens, than try to get cheap labor (less than minimum wage) for businesses with ILLEGAL ALIENS.
He's not likely to fall for the "Raise the Minimum Wage" Argument, that really IS NOT about Minimum Wage, but is about UNION WAGE SCALE attached to the minimum wage increase.
TED CRUZ is one VERY INTELLIGENT SERVANT, and I trust him !

[conservativejoy]

You betcha! Keep up your good work!

[ConservativeMind]

It is impossible for the Senate to pass a treaty with a “simple majority.”. The Constitution forbids it and Senate rules don’t trump it.

What a “simple majority” allows is no immediate hassle with the bill and the ability to undo it whenever the Senate so deems.

[mbrfl]

You may be right, but isn’t Cruz’s willingness to stand on principle and his willingness and eloquence in defending his positions against MSM critics, a big reason why so many of us have been attracted to him as a candidate? If, for the sake of expedience, he starts to abandon that which made him stand out from all the others, then sadly, he risks becoming just like all the others

[ConservativeMind]

Your senator can and should always vote “no” for things for which he/she doesn’t know or agree.

What’s the problem?

[Roland]

You sir are mistaken. While the constitution requires a supermajority for treaties the purpose of fast track is to concede additional authority from congress to the executive branch. I would like to remind you in 1993 NAFTA was passed, under fast track, by 61-38. While the Senate may undo it do you honestly expect that to happen?

The fate of this bill will be determined by fast track. Those who supported fast track have shown their position on the treaty.

[ConservativeMind]

NAFTA has not been a problem. Our problem has been trade with China which requires China’s partial ownership of every business and the stealing of said intellectual property.

Treaties can’t be undone, but a simple Senate majority, can.

[ConservativeMind]

By the way:

“Those who supported fast track have shown their position on the treaty.”

What treaty are you/we talking about? There are no treaties. Do I need to explain this to you all over?

If you can point to a treaty, we have a different discussion yet to be had.

[Roland]

Who do you suppose will undue this? Are Boehner and McConnell or Cruz going to lead the coalition? None of this would even be a concern if fast track is not given, which is my point. The politicians are simply playing us by saying one thing while doing another.

[ConservativeMind]

The same issues would continue to exists under non-fast-track, because the same things can still be passed by a simple majority. “Fast-track” doesn’t change this. Can you prove otherwise?

[Roland]

If there is no fast track the bill will go to the floor as a treaty requiring a Senate supermajority. Fast track is the maneuver used to change the rules. Are there other ways they could go about this? Perhaps, but historically fast track is the only one that has ever been used on treaties. The fact that our politicians prefer to call it by another name (TPA) is telling.