Posted on 06/14/2015 9:26:45 PM PDT by P-Marlowe
...The fear of disadvantageous treaties also underlay the Framers' insistence on approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In particular, the Framers worried that one region or interest within the nation, constituting a bare majority, would make a treaty advantageous to it but prejudicial to other parts of the country and to the national interest....
Under the Articles of Confederation, treaties required assent of a supermajority (nine out of thirteen) of the states, and the South was able to block the treaty. It was undoubtedly that experience that impelled the Framers to carry over the supermajority principle from the Articles of Confederation.
At the Convention, several prominent Framers argued unsuccessfully to have the House of Representatives included. But most delegates thought that the House had substantial disadvantages when it came to treaty-making. For example, as a large body, the House would have difficulty keeping secrets or acting quickly. The small states, wary of being disadvantaged, also preferred to keep the treaty-making power in the Senate, where they had proportionally greater power.
The ultimate purpose, then, of the Treaty Clause was to ensure that treaties would not be adopted unless most of the country stood to gain. True, treaties would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind....
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
Ping to Article from Heritage.org
Here is the direct link to the article:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause
I don’t see anything about the Magna Carta in there.
Are you of the opinion that international agreements that bind the United States of America are "treaties" or some other kind of document?
The article makes it clear that the founders intended that any agreement with a foreign country or a bunch of foreign countries that would bind the United States (there's 50 of them today) would need 2/3 of the Senate to approve.
Do you have a problem with that requirement?
One is given pause to consider...
Suppose those government employee data-hacks were not foreign-based, or ‘minor’, as was originally reported? Hillary could only get her grubby mitts on 900 files.
True professionals count their extortion victims in the 10s of millions.
But then...
Why would anyone be concerned if their ideological heroes began, suddenly, to act as if the unthinkable– a ‘new world order’– were a fait-accompli?
Crazy, right?
Interesting that Congress began to insert provisions authorizing the President to bargain over trade agreements with no necessity of subsequent legislative action beginning with the Tariff Act of 1890 - at the start of the Progressive Era.
The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act of 1934 at the height of the FDR revolution apparently gave the President even more “fast track” authority.
Glen Beck’s on to something in his Progressives lectures.
there actually are 57 states today
Obama has so informed us
Get with the program!
(note: there happen to be exactly 57 states and terrorist organizations in the international Islamic conference/organization. a pure coincidence, no doubt...)
/s
FWIW a tariff does not require the signature of another country. Congress alone has the power to institute tariffs as they are revenue bills. The country from which we get our tariffs obviously is not going to sign off on that.
Any agreement between two countries that is binding on both is a treaty. The president is charged with negotiating treaties. They are not valid unless 2/3 of the Senate approves.
Every “trade agreement” we have entered into has been referred to by the other countries that are parties to it as a “treaty.”
TPP is a called a “trade agreement” here, but for every other country involved it is referred to as a treaty.
International law recognizes that all trade agreements between two or more nations are “treaties.” This has been true since long before the United States was formed.
Treaties among nations involve such things as military agreements, navigation and rites of passage, treatment of foreigners while residing or sojourning abroad, etc.
Commercial or trade agreements are never considered as treaties because they involve revenues in the form of tariffs and only the House can originate revenue bills thereby rendering trade agreements as legislation, not treaties.
This is foundational law in the United States. Trade is never considered in the context of treaty making.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/97-896.pdf
http://conginst.org/2011/12/12/trade-or-treaty-why-does-the-house-approve-free-trade-agreements/
From your link:
“The legislative process for free trade agreements was established in Section 151 of the Trade Act of 1974.”
treaty
[tree-tee]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun, plural treaties.
1.
a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.
2.
the formal document embodying such an international agreement.
3.
any agreement or compact.
And from your Heritage paper:
“Somewhat more troublesome is the modern practice of so-called congressional–executive agreements, by which some international agreements have been made by the President and approved (either in advance or after the fact) by a simple majority of both houses of Congress, rather than two-thirds of the Senate. Many of these agreements deal particularly with trade-related matters, which Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate. Congressional–executive agreements, at least with respect to trade matters, are now well established, and recent court challenges have been unsuccessful. Made in the USA Foundation v. United States (2001). “
You’re trying to support Session’s assertions but it won’t hold up as case law does not support trade agreements as treaties.
Right.
It is just to note that a tariff act may involve more than tariffs. And US courts admit that “agreements” are the equivalent of treaties when it comes to nullifying state laws or perhaps even other federal laws. Thus there are clauses in this recent fast track authority that supposedly prevent altering laws. However, I don’t see any hope of reining in the courts ability to do the law altering or nullifying based on seeing an agreement equivalent to a treaty.
Yikes!
Yes, that definition is a fairly good one and not a word about trade is found in it.
Case law also says that Obamacare is constitutional, women have a right to murder their children and Japanese Americans can be herded into Concentration camps.
Did you miss the word “commerce”?
Ok, what you’re doing is trying to shoehorn fit trade matters into issues of treaties and that is the wrong approach because trade matters are not treated as treaties in the USA.
HOWEVER,
we have a lawless President who abuses his authority on a regular basis and here’s where you need to focus; this is how you approach what you’re after:
Obama is ‘said to be’ slipping treaty provisions into so-called ‘trade agreements’ presumably to avoid the Senate super majority requirement for the approval of treaties.
In other words Obama is yet again lying or at least he is ‘suspected to be’.
Why ‘said to be’ or ‘suspected to be’? Because these trade agreements are still secret. Until they are made public, Congress cannot deem them one way or the other. Members of Congress can have an opinion but no official congressional stance can be taken as of yet.
So forget trying to twist definitions and utilization of trade versus treaty. It’s an unwarranted exercise and unnecessary too.
Instead you may discuss the historical development and jurisdictional treatment of trade versus treaty. And then discuss the potential and expected consequences of Obama’s deceptive treaties that masquerade themselves as trade agreements.
A commerce agreement is not the same as a trade Agreement.
A trade agreement specifies exactly what is authorized to be traded whereas a commerce agreement is general in allowing the traffic of commercial vessels or cargo to pass unfettered or unmolested through certain regions of control.
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.