Posted on 06/19/2015 6:37:41 PM PDT by VitacoreVision
You win!
You don’t have to show that setting our safety, wages, environmental protection, etc. were ceded to others in any of those agreements.
You can just NOT BE RESPONSIVE!
Who Decides? Congress and the Debate Over Trade Policy in 1934 and 1974
Both of these bills stimulated widespread resistance among members of Congress. Some of this resistance reflected Congressional reluctance to cede any authority to the Executive branch. However, much of this concern reflected public support for protectionism, which is deeply rooted in American democracy. Citizens believed and believe today that protection preserved jobs, high wages and America's social stability. [1]
Snip...The GATT was deliberately drafted so that the United States could participate without changing existing U.S. law. Under the Protocol of Provisional Application, the provisions of the GATT are binding only insofar as they are not inconsistent with America's existing legislation.[4] From 1948-1974, Congress effectively drew a line in the sand beyond which it would not cede control over trade policy or over other policies that trade might affect such as how to regulate consumer safety or environmental protection. But the Trade Act of 1974 redrew that line when Congress agreed to negotiate nontariff barriers such as procurement regulations or safety standards that could distort trade.
What do you propose as an alternative?
See 68.
Our way or the highway?
See 68.
Moreover, some of this resistance reflected Congressional unwillingness to view trade policy as foreign policy. For much of U.S. history, policymakers saw trade policy solely as a domestic issue. According to the trade scholar William Kelly, the United States tariff, although negotiable in principle, had not been very negotiable in fact.[2] This perspective continued even after the development and success of the GATT. Until 1974, Congress repeatedly refused to negotiate reduction of nontariff trade barriers.[3]
NAFTA at 10: An Economic and Foreign Policy Success
For the United States, NAFTA was more about foreign policy than about the domestic economy.
Seems like nothing has changed.
It isn't a treaty in the Article II sense but it's constitutional and the way trade agreements have been done in the modern era
Congress and the executive agree to approach problems via legislation all the time - that's what's happening here. The issue seems to be that this is an international agreement, but I'm not aware of any constitutional problem with extending normal legislation to govern international interactions, and the federal courts have agreed. These agreements have been how every trade deal since 1890 has been implemented, and there haven't been any successful challenges on constitutional grounds.
Why do you ask for that which can never be provided?
The whole purpose of implementing trade agreements was to, unconstitutionally IMO, avoid the treaty process all together!
Our way or the highway? See 68.
Not sure what you're proposing. Do you want the members of the trade body elected in a national election, or appointed by our elected representatives? I think the latter is a part of TPP as far as I've heard.
If your position is that every modern trade agreement is unconstitutional, have fun. If you like I can link to Reagan's attorney general and the Heritage Foundation explaining why these congressional-executive agreements are constitutional (not to mention every modern president and many iterations of the Supreme Court).
I choose to focus on the reality that the world is changing, we need to trade with other nations, and it's in our interest to have some say is setting those rules.
It isn't a matter of being responsive or not. My argument is that these congressional-executive agreements have been used for every modern trade agreement, they've been used by pretty much every modern president, and they've been supported by the Supreme Court.
It seems that you don't like this reality but I can't really help you there.
Based upon one court case...Field v. Clark, 143 US 649 - Supreme Court 1892
...the way trade agreements have been done in the modern era
That's comforting. What else is considered "the way things are done" because of "the modern era"? Abortion? Gay rights? Homosexual marriage?
I think the latter is a part of TPP as far as I've heard.
Well until the deal is made public you really don't know what's in it, do you?
"Something you heard" isn't proof, is it?
The WTO makes the rules! Congress makes domestic law that binds us to those rules.
And just because Meese says something my brain is supposed to stop working? It was his opinion.
Did you even read what is at the bottom of that article?
Why Trade Promotion Authority is Constitutional
Nothing written here is to be construed as legal advice on any matter, as an attempt to create an attorney-client relationship, or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any matter pending before Congress.
And yet you and others are doing that very thing.
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.