Posted on 06/14/2015 9:36:25 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Your post was a breath of fresh air. Hallelujah! Someone who Gets It!
Bridge for sale .... Bridge for sale....cheap!
It is not clear to me that the Democrats have killed the bill. It may be that they are just playing for more concessions from the Republicrats before they pass it.
Do you honestly believe this is the intention? That Cruz would inflame his base and burn capital with unpopular legislation simply to obtain fast track? Or that he will later decide not to support TPP, which btw he has already read.
While this discussion centers on TPP I’m more concerned about the other two trade agreements because there has been even less discussion about them. Although we do know, from wikileaks, that TiSA has provisions which will remain secret for 5 years AFTER it enters force! Don’t know about you but I love secret laws.
There is too much at stake here to give the benefit of the doubt simply because Cruz ambiguously supports it. The fate of these trade agreements WILL be determined by TPA.
If you understand TPA, there is a lot to recommend its advantages to Congress and to us. If TPA is passed, TiSA CANNOT remain secret.
Cruz has read TPP in its current form, but it is not complete. One reason I don’t believe it will pass is because TPA has not been in effect during negotiations. Had TPA been in effect, Congress would have been involved in the negotiations and the President would be operating under the restrictions and requirements of TPA.
TPP is a long way from being voted on (probably late 2016) but when it is, I don’t believe it will pass.
It can also be passed by a simple majority thereby tying the hands of the next president.
If Ted Cruz wants to bypass the Treaty Clause when he is president, then he is no better than BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA.
If any candidate wants to ignore the plain language of the Constitution, or to add things to it that the plain language doesn’t have there, then they aren’t worthy to lead the nation.
It's on a fast track. If Obama declares it to be finalized (and it probably is - otherwise why would it be so secret?) then they have only 60 days to vote on it. That brings it up before they leave for Christmas break.
If you don't think it will pass by a simple majority (with Ted Cruz casting a worthless no vote), then you underestimate the power of international and big corporation money.
Thank you, Well said.
Did TPP originate in the congressional house?
Or did it originate in the white house?
TPP is not subject to any amendments or change if TPA is passed.
Is that how the founders intended our government to operate? In secret, with no ability of Congress to make any changes before voting on something written by the president and signed by the leaders of 11 other nations?
I'm sorry but there is no getting around the fact that TPP is a treaty. Unless, of course, you believe in a Living Constitution that is subject to change without amendment in light of modern realities.
Do you believe in that?
It's been a long time since we had one who was "worthy". But that doesn't mean we should lower our standards. If we believe in Original Intent and strict construction, then we need to fight for it instead of rolling over and accepting the current zeitgeist on Constitutional intepretation.
Do you honestly believe this is the intention? That Cruz would inflame his base and burn capital with unpopular legislation simply to obtain fast track
Yes, I believe in Ted Cruz.
TPP is a trade agreement which has unfortunately not been negotiated under TPA, which would have allowed Congressional involvement.
TPP contains components of revenue and tariffs. That makes it subject to a vote by both the House and the Senate. A treaty would only require a Senate vote. Trade agreements have been upheld by the Supreme Court several times as Not being treaties.
Absolutely. The same with first and second amendment rights. We don’t ensure those rights by rolling over and playing submissive puppy when the enemy is using persecution as a calling card.
The plain language and the plain intent of the Constitution isn’t rocket science.
Our problem in politics is that no one is found worthy to carry the banner. Then we must support no one or a candidate who is minimally flawed. Both of those solutions leave a bad taste in our mouths, and might well be self-defeating.
And if we follow the Constitution on treaties, the Senate has an infinite number of days and nothing passes without a 2/3rd majority.
No way that TPA is better than that.
Thanks very much for the ping. I respect you and the company in the ping very much.
My own opinion, here, leaves out Jeff Sessions, although I agree with him on the alarm bells.
My problem with any of our candidates seen leading on this dog is that NO ONE truly wants to deal with a major piece of legislation under this president that some might say equals the magnitude of Obamacare and like Obamacare leaves Congress with no Advise whatsoever, but plenty of manipulated Consent, with but that blasted UP or DOWN vote on the whole, and well AFTER the fact of it.
Period.Period.
Never mind the sunny projections that the SCOTUS approves “fast track” as something that overturns no laws, and conjures it up with the thrilling tradition of George Washington.
So, with the authority of fast track in his hand, Obama shapes the subsequent agreement, has the authority to sign it, presents it to Congress, with some VITAL features, and some “necessary” TIME bomb, and with plenty of expected Obama shark hooks.
Will the Republican Congress buckle to the almost certain vital features that will be in it? How about an attached time bomb that is sure to be included with those VITAL features? After all, Obama is working with Boehner and McConnell, here, and rings their bell regularly with just a little pressure added. Like a time bomb.
Remember, there are NO ammendments, no horse trading, no discussion. Will Congress vote “YEA”, to salvage the vital and to “beat the clock”, or will they reject the catastrophic shark hooks Obama adds to it that further kill capitalism and independence, to vote “NO”???
Does anyone realize how agonized Congress will be tied in knots when this comes up and Congress is placed squarely in the Obama political vice, being squeezed to rupture?
Politically the trade agreement guarantees Howard and Pivens chaos to keep up the divisiveness for another year and a half, damages voter turn out for Republicans and blows one more election.
We’re getting worked over, I’m afraid. Trust is not an issue with these players or they would scuttle this bright idea and wait to work this out after the election with Republican majorities in both houses (hopefully). Obviously, to me, this looks like UniParty activity from top to bottom.
Putting lipstick on this piglet doesn’t overcome the objection of this president being in charge of it for a year and a half. That concern will not go away easily for me, or just because some favored candidate likes this monster.
Somebody, coax me off the ledge.
The only thing I need to ask is why Obama twisted democrat arms to pass TPA if, as the author claims, it limits his power to rule by fiat. His support for TPA and the authors claim that it limits presidential power are totally incongruous and can not be explained by anybody to my satisfaction.
TPA cannot force Obama to reveal the negotiations or place any binding restrictions on him! He has repeatedly demonstrated he has little regard for law when it suits him. The best we can hope for is that congress (in that scenario) would withdraw TPA and vote down the trade agreement. Once again I have little faith that congress would do this. Bohener? McConnel? Both in the tank.
While there is speculation on what may or may not happen under TPA, you may not agree with the previous paragraph. You’re still basing the argument on the best possible outcome of TPA when in reality none of this matters if TPA is not given. Let him present the finished trade agreements to congress for consideration without the self-imposed restrictions of TPA. If it turns out to be good, and I am mistaken, then it will become law or TPA can then be given to expedite. If not it can still be stopped, once TPA is given we will be stuck with this, whatever it turns out to be.
Democrats put on shows for us all the time. Its nothing new and we all know it.
Now Obama has an excuse to give democrats and unions goodies. It wasn’t an hour after voting that Nancy Pelosi showed up on twitter suggesting that some infrastructure money could convince her to change her mind. And then she invited her followers to make suggestions of how to make the bill better.
Hillary is telling people that they now have the leverage to get what they want out of it while she herself refuses to take questions about it.
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.