Posted on 06/17/2015 10:16:15 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
The left and even some Republicans have argued that the procedures for agreeing to the Trans Pacific Partnership are undemocratic. A leading argument is that voting for “fast track” for the TPP violates democratic principles because Congress is changing its rules now in order to later ratify an agreement it has not yet seen.
The arguments are wholly misplaced. “Fast track” simply permits Congress under its ordinary procedures to commit to a future majority vote of Congress to vote up or down on an agreement that the President has negotiated. Representative democracy is thus served by the later vote on an agreement whose text is known.
It is true that fast track eliminates certain procedural obstacles like the filibuster rule in the Senate and the requirements of committee approval. But there is nothing sacrosanct about a set of procedural rules to democracy. The Senate eliminates its filibuster rules for budgetary reconciliation and the House and Senate often pass legislation that has not been considered in committee. Moreover, parliamentary democracies are democratic and the process of ratification for the TPP actually gives more blocking power than is typical in those forms of government, because Congress imposes some requirements that the TPP must meet to get the advantage of fast track.
The comparison to parliamentary government is particularly relevant, because the TPP is an international agreement. Other nations are unlikely to negotiate seriously if they know that any agreement they make can be amended in Congress to the unilateral advantage of the United States. Given the geopolitical reasons for the TPP, making this procedural precommitment is in the national interest.
The complaints of the left are hypocritical on this matter given their enthusiasm for the administrative state. Remember that there Congress also delegates broad power to the executive—often under even more elastic standards than the TPP fast track– to implement regulations that Congress has not yet seen. And unlike TPP fast track legislation, these delegations do not guarantee Congress an up or down vote to approve these regulations to make them the law of the land. If the left was truly unhappy about the lack of democracy in the TTP fast track, it would support the REINS act which requires Congress’s approval of major regulations that administrative agencies promulgate. The left’s opposition to such legislation shows that their real complaint is not about the loss of democracy, but about deregulation. On the whole, TPP is about removing barriers to free exchange and the administrative state is about raising them.
I tried to give you a hint. Now you are posting pablum. Par for the course for these threads.
EVERY member of congress that votes for this must be primaried next year and removed from office.
Oh, let's quibble! They ratified it.
Yet there was debate.
Debating the New START Treaty
The Senate Armed Services Committee wrapped up testimony July 20 on the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia, part of President Obama's overall nuclear nonproliferation strategy. The Senate must now decide whether to ratify or shelve the measure. But while action may wait until later this year, battle lines are already being drawn. The White House and congressional Democrats have warned against rejection of the treaty, the terms of which were agreed to by Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in April. On the other side of the debate are analysts and Republican lawmakers who warn that the treaty will devastate U.S. national security and be a strategic victory for Russia.
Senate approves nuclear arms treaty with Russia
The Senate voted 71-26 in favor of the New START treaty between the former Cold War foes after a contentious debate with Republican leaders that threatened traditional bipartisanship on security affairs.
None of that is going to happen with TPP.
Thanks for taking the bait.
You haven’t been following this very closely, have you? When the TPP is published, Congress will have 60 days to debate it. So yes, “yet” there will be debate.
The final vote came after Senate Democrats accepted two amendments designed to placate Republicans who had qualms about the treaty. The amendments, which passed on voice votes with bipartisan support, emphasized the administration's commitment to a limited missile-defense program and to continued funding to modernize the aging U.S. nuclear weapons complex.
No amendments for TPP or any of the other upcoming "trade deals", is there?
Ok So Con. You posted this. Explain to all of us how, in light of the above statement, TPP is not a treaty.
Don't post a bunch of talking points. Tell us in your own words.
Inform us ignorant peasants with your brilliance.
They can debate it all they want...they can't amend it! It's an up or down vote as is, isn't it.
The amendments were to the resolution of ratification accompanying the treaty, a nonbinding statement that codifies the Senate's understanding of the pact but does not directly affect its language.
Were there, or were there not, amendments?
Were they, or were they not, binding? Jeepers you early morning protectionists are dense.
So you admit there were amendments, even if they were not binding.
Thank you again for playing along.
The Senate did negotiate a START Treaty. Several times, in fact.
It just didn't amount to squat. Good for nothing is good enough for you.
Hmm . . . just like the START Treaty!
I also corrected myself...Oh, let's quibble! They ratified it.
Good for nothing is good enough for you.
Attempting to read other people's minds again?
No, not just like the START Treaty!. Once again, TPP is an up or down vote with no amendments...right?
What's this about "reading minds?" Sounds like Religion Forum stuff. Why don't you go back there if you can't handle Econ threads.
Unless someone chooses to pass a non-binding amendment. Derp.
Once again, TPP is an up or down vote with no amendments...right?
Once again, TPP is an up or down vote with no amendments...right?
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.