Posted on 06/14/2015 12:28:21 AM PDT by familyop
“Sure,” Cruz responded. “There is a lot of confusion and, unfortunately, a lot of misinformation you can get on the Internet that people are confused, so let’s explain what each of those three are.” Cruz, by saying that, was essentially making the exact same claim—blaming the Internet for what he argues is “misinformation”—as House Ways and Means Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)...From there, Cruz aimed to separate TPA and TPP—but he didn’t mention the other, even more secretive trade agreements like T-TIP or TiSA, which would also be fast-tracked under TPA. TPP’s text is available for members of Congress to review in a secret room in the Capitol basement.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I never buy into any man being invincible. That’s what the left does.
Savvy? Well, Cruz definitely didn’t handle this well. The whole secrecy thing and appearing to ‘get in line’ with Ibama and company.
That’s it! You nailed it and well said!
Thank you!
He has lost the Tea Party.
Cruz is right on this in a real world.
It just gives Obama the authority to negotiate in fast track trade negotiations. Just about every modern American has been given the same authority
The trade bill would still have to be voted on.
In a normal world, Obama’s disastrous, sell out, damage, diminish and screw America at every opportunity would be a public relations disaster for him and it would be voted down with a huge, embarrassing loss.
This is the real reason the Democrats voted it down. They don't want Obama to drive the final nail in the Democrats coffin as a parting shot after the two Obama fueled massive losses in 2010 and 2014.
The scary thing is that from what we have been seeing of the bought and sold Senate and House leadership is that there is a very real chance Republicans would pass it, no matter how bad it is.
We simply can't empower this administration to do anything any more.
As you can see, these 'agreements' would have been considered treaties by the Founders.
So, what is meant by a “treaty” as expressed by our Founders?In Federalist No. 64 Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:
”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”
And in Federalist No. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…”
Finally, In Federalist No. 22 Hamilton talks about “a treaty of commerce” as follows:
”A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade, though such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.”
The irrefutable fact is, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement falls within the meaning of a treaty as the word was used and understood by our founding fathers, and as such, requires a two thirds vote to become an enforceable contract, or bargain with the nations involved.
So why do the proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement, and this includes the snakes at the Cato Institute, pretend it is not a treaty? The obvious answer is, to avoid having to bribe a two thirds vote to accomplish their evil doings!
And if you think bribery is not taking place on this issue, here is the evidence that members of our Senate have sold their vote!
See:Corporations shell out $1.2mn in Senate contributions to fast-track TPP
“What the documents showed was that out of a total of nearly $1.2 million given, an average of $17,000 was donated to each of the 65 “yes” votes. Republicans received an average of $19,000 and Democrats received $9,700.
“It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us, told the Guardian. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their re-election campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.”
And, here is a list of dirt bag traitorous Republican Senators who voted to circumvent our representative system of government and allow the president to usurp Congress' legislative functions:
Alexander, Tenn.; Ayotte, N.H.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Blunt, Mo.; Boozman, Ark.; Burr, N.C.; Capito, W.V.; Cassidy, La.; Coats, Ind.; Cochran, Miss.; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Cotton, Ark.; Crapo, Idaho; Cruz, Texas; Daines, Mont.; Ernst, Iowa; Fischer, Neb.; Flake, Ariz.; Gardner, Colo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Hatch, Utah; Heller, Nev.; Hoeven, N.D.; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Johnson, Wis.; Kirk, Ill.; Lankford, Okla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Moran, Kan.; Murkowski, Alaska; Perdue, Ga.; Portman, Ohio; Risch, Idaho; Roberts, Kan.; Rounds, S.D.; Rubio, Fla.; Sasse, Neb.; Scott, S.C.; Sullivan, Alaska; Thune, S.D.; Tillis, N.C.; Toomey, Pa.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.
I don’t agree with every last thing you said there, but good post nevertheless.
Just goes to show we can’t trust anyone to put the interests of US citizens first. I’m not against free trade but I am against a policy that offers zero protection to US workers from being replaced by foreign labor legal or illegal. If you want to know why we are having riots it is because the jobs in manufacturing have been replaced by lower paying non career worthy service industry jobs. No one is proposing to fix the big problems our corporate tax policy is causing which is forcing manufacturing jobs in particular overseas but now they want to open up the spigot on foreign visas which will kill the opportunities for US workers in the IT field which is one of the few places where one can get a good start with even a 2 year technical degree. So US workers have to compete with young workers who often don’t even have to go in debt for their higher education. I’m sorry but I’m tired of the false promises. I’ve seen the tech industry go from being dominated by US citizens to being now dominated by foreign born who I hold no personal animus against but find it a problem given how many US citizens are not even being considered. I’m not personally endangered but I see a hard row for US born who even when qualified if they are not the preferred skin color they face an up hill battle. I fully understand why young blacks in the inner city feel angry though their targets of the cops is misplaced. Its not the cops keeping them down, its their favored politicians who right and left are shipping their futures to communist China who are enjoying vacations on the beach and a growing middle class while black communities are left to be content with handouts.
LOL!
You are right. It is a lot cheaper and easier to bribe half the Senators than it is to bribe 2/3 of them.
BTW thanks for the link. I hadn't read that stuff before, but the founders obviously agree with me and disagree with Ted.
You are being very strict here. And you are exactly right!
By the way, we see the same sort of thing with regulations. A law only goes into effect after it has been discussed by Congress, then voted on. How could a President get around that pesky Constitutional requirement? Simple. Just call the proposed rule a "regulation" instead.
An easy way, IMO, of telling the difference between the two...
treaty - subject to international law
executive agreement - subject to domestic law
"Trade/executive" agreements are eventually encoded into domestic law (think NAFTA 19 USC Ch. 21: NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE, URAA 19 USC 3511: Approval and entry into force of Uruguay Round Agreements, etc.) and, therefore, are not treaties.
JMO and you may not agree.
bumping your post
Look at the posting history of many (and I mean MANY) of the people that weren’t just dissing Cruz on this vote but calling him a traitor, globalist, Obama’s bud, etc...
You’ll find virtually all of them in a birth/NBC thread at some point. Isn’t that interesting? What’s more interesting many of them were spewing in verbatim the exact same talking points as if they were pulling from the same anti-birther website.
And with the exception of a few, they don’t name whom they really support which is becoming clearer its Trump, because they’re afraid of a purge like what happened to the Rudy G people because face it, Trump isn’t a conservative. Trump is the new Ron Paul.
This is why I viewed with skepticism awhile back that had articles published saying Cruz was winning over the Ron Paulbots from 08/12. Paulbots are flat out nutcases and their behavior mimics that of the liberals to a level of embarrassment. I’m now convinced these people think Trump is the new RuPaul because of some miscellaneous statements Trump has made in the past. They think he is Tom Tancredo on immigration and Pat Buchanan on foreign policy and pro-isolation. They forget Trump has made some pretty hideous statements about the Tea Party and conservatives in general (when he’s not claiming to have invented the Tea Party). Trump will have more leftists running his campaign than Jebbers and that’s saying a lot. He’s donated to and supported Hillary and Schumer’s NY Senate campaigns (over Rick Lazio I might add).
Yet because of this one issue, Trump is now a hero?
Well I’ve got one last question for the Cruz-bashers, just one. Hopefully this question will weed out the truly concerned from the truly nuts:
Let’s say we way 19 months and Obama leaves office and Cruz gets elected President with the same Republican majorities in office. TPA comes back for a vote, and Cruz has all the provisions of TPP fully released so that it is fully available for not just 60 days, but at any time for the anyone in the public to view it.
Does TPA pass this time and get supported since this would address the 2 biggest issues, secrecy and no tyrannical marxist in office? From what I’ve heard on talk radio they would support it at that point. Or would people out here still oppose it?
See 110. Hope it helps the debate.
And we wonder why our federal government is so freaking out of control. It is because no one in the Beltway gives a crap about the Constitution. It's anything goes.
If the Constitution says you can't do "squat", then you redefine "squat", call it by another name and do it anyway.
Follow the money. It is the only way to figure out what is going on in DC.
It was from a long ago freeper who sent me the link and remained anonymous. Apparently he/she has been lurking on the TPP/TPA/TAA threads.
See post 104.
See post #104
I was an absolutely passionate defender of Cruz’s natural born status. I was a donor to his campaign, a defender of his campaign, and one who was hopeful of the principled conservatism it promised. These things are easily checked on all the natural born threads and the Ted Cruz threads.
And, to be fair, I’ve always ended up being a bit of a pragmatist along about the last month of a presidential campaign. IOW, I tend to vote rather than not vote.
I was prepared to vote for Virgil Goode the last election until: (1) Benghazi, and (2) The Constitution Party held a rally in Ohio. Benghazi so enraged me, I couldn’t imagine Romney being worse on that than Obama. The CP’s Ohio rally so disappointed me that all they’d done was have a carry-in picnic that I realized they weren’t remotely serious about a real campaign.
How this relates to Ted Cruz is that these are negatives now in his column. He also has positives on my tally sheet. I’ll look at all the candidates and evaluate them the same way, and when the primary finally gets to Ohio, I’ll vote for the candidate with the most positives and the least negatives.
That is, unless some third party actually launches a real campaign with a real candidate.
FWIW, I think Cruz has so injured himself with H1B and TPA that he’ll not still be around when the primary finally comes to Ohio. JMHO.
see 104
Trade promotion authority isn’t a presidential power grab, its advocates say, but rather an authority dating back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt that helps secure critical trade agreements, sending deals to Congress for an up-or-down vote without amendments.
“Trade authority has a long bipartisan history, dating back to President Franklin Roosevelt,” noted Jeffrey Zients, director of the National Economic Council, in an April blog post emphasizing that Congress had renewed this authority “18 different times, under both Democratic and Republican Presidents alike.”
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/06/12/fast-track-votes-have-long-difficult-history/
Already did, bro. See 119.
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.