Posted on 06/13/2015 4:07:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Which failed!
SA 1384. Mr. HATCH (for Mr. Cruz (for himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Isakson, Mr. Boozman, and Mr. Inhofe)) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed
[[Page S3081]]
to amendment SA 1221 proposed by Mr. Hatch to the bill H.R. 1314, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt status of certain organizations; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of section 102(a), add the following: (14) to ensure that trade agreements do not require changes to the immigration laws of the United States.
Amendment SA 1221 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 - 37. Record Vote Number: 191. (05/22/2015)
H.R.1314 passed Senate with an amendment by Yea-Nay Vote. 62 - 37.
Seriously, Cruz needs to stop digging himself into a hole here. He’s hemorrhaging credibility with a LOT of people whose support he’s going to need in the coming months.
Exactly. This is infuriating to me because this is all quite calculated on Cruz’s part. An Op ed with Ryan, one duplicitous press release after another, etc., etc.
He didn’t just quietly vote for TPA and hit the campaign trail. There is some real intention here in these political chess moves. As a former strong supporter of Cruz it is shocking to me to see him enable the kenyan and throw Main Street under the bus. His behavior here makes me reassess his entire beltway career now.
I was reminded of an excuse prepared by the staff of the current white hut.
So chatty, so well crafted, so condescending, so 8th grade.
No, I didn’t like the Cruz team argument in favor of their boss.
Roe v Wade made abortion a constitutional right more than 40 years ago. Using that logic, then it was a correct decision.
The constitution requires a 2/3 approval by the senate for all treaties and all trade agreements are, by definition, treaties.
But Ted Cruz doesn't seem to care about what the constitution says, he's more interested in what the Supreme Court says.
I hope they get overtime pay during weekends?
TPA is available to read by anyone on Earth with a computer.
Maybe I’m not understanding this correctly, but what about this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3299726/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3299380/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3299013/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3296654/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3296363/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3296350/posts
or this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3295837/posts
All of the above links are articles about the trade agreement details released by Wikileaks from 6/1 through 6/12. Some are quite frightening, especially the last one.
I am a hugh fan the Ted, but his stance here is giving me pause.
I have read this and I am still not swayed. We don’t need legislation that allows a simple majority to approve trade agreements without debate.... that is what I understand TPA does.
One line is glaring for me [actually many are glaring but let’s stick to this one].
“But isn’t TPA a secret agreement?
No, it is not. The full text of TPA (fast track) is public. What the Senate just voted for was TPA, not TPP.”
If there is a full text the Cruz org needs to provide a link or publish the text. I can’t find it though I have looked.
I won’t dissect the Cruz team’s note but it has several points that need to be discussed. I also find it in the same tone as something that comes from the staff of the current white hut... chatty, condescending, written on the 8th grade level and a little superficial.
Harry Reid killed the last TPA sometime in the past... I don’t know when.
We seem to have a lot of free trade already and most of it does not seem to favor US. I’d like to see some that does for a change but it isn’t TPP or TiPA or that other one with the Euros. They are all obammy creations and therefore full of turds for US.
Ted’s team did not convince me that Ted has a good reason to support this mess. It is complicated and anything this complex needs to go back to the drawing board. The people deserve a complete explanation. That is the people who want to know.
I clipped and commented on several articles on the subject starting about here and from Post 135: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3299838/posts?page=133#133
I still find Ted and Heidi to have the appearance of a conflict of interest on this subject.
“It has long been recognized that the Constitution’s Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives’ involvement.”
I found the above line interesting, relating to your question the other day where you asked why TPP was not considered a treaty. Still seems a little sketchy to me, but interesting nonetheless.
I expected a real fight between Walker and Cruz.
Never, never, did I expect Cruz to insist he be allowed to commit political suicide first.
You do know that Walker supports TPA as well, don’t you?
Cruz did not commit suicide. He is a US senator that was elected to make decisions many voters are incapable of making
I don’t question Cruz’sincerity and honesty on this s ubject. But the Evil Demon in the Oval Office is so vile and so mendacious and so inventive that I oppose ant collaboration with him on ANY subject WHATSOEVER.
If you have the answer to the question, how about answering it instead of telling people to RTFM?
Agreeing to any system of international law is tantamount to a treaty. Treaties require two thirds of the Senators for ratification. That’s why a “trade agreement” meant to force its members to change their laws to meet common standards as enacted by mere Congressional majority must be unconstitutional.
You want me to explain a 600 page bill to you? How much are you going to pay me? LOL
No, simply the answer to my question.
Or aren’t you capable of it?
“Cruz has jumped the shark on this and is not a credible candidate.”
Then the same goes for Walker, Rubio and countless others. So who does that leave us with?
LOL! Good one!
I was looking up some of these trade deals earlier, and found with the notation that under international law they were considered treaties, but that they weren’t in the US because our Congress chose to use the standard of passage by House and Senate rather than 2/3 majority to succeed.
Just a curiosity I ran across. In other words, they look like a treaty, walk like a treaty, quack like a treaty, but our Congress has blatantly ignored our Constitution.
Gives me a warm fuzzy deep inside.
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.