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would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind....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 ...
The are considered "treaties" by the countries that sign them and by international courts and under international law.
I suppose you could call them a banana.
Well now you’re starting to act like a smart ass which is stupid.
In order to get ‘your version’ of definitions accepted you will need to have courts overturn hundreds of years of precedents - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
I tried to contribute to your thread objective referenced material but I can see and others reading can see that your aim is to force your view on everyone and everything. I also gave you what I consider wise counsel on how to modify your approach but you do not listen and instead you respond with smart ass remarks.
I’m done here.
Assuming what you say is true, then nearly every trade agreement including Nafta and TPP would have to be considered a treaty because they cover a lot more issues than authorization for goods to be traded. They include such things as immigration, access to markets, access to ports and highways and rivers. I'm sure TPP contains all kinds of crap about global warming and limitations on the rights of Americans to drill for oil, mine coal, drive SUV's......
So how can Nafta and TPP not be subject to the treaty clause?
Perhaps not, but if we could get 51 Senators that thought like Jeff Sessions, then the Senate could pass a rule stating that no "trade bill" is going to go to the house or be approved without a 2/3 super majority in the Senate. Then it wouldn't matter if they called it a treaty or not.
Instead they decided to give Obama fast track on TPP whether it meets the definition of a treaty or not.
Bfl
NAFTA is not a treaty, it is a trade agreement and that means it is regulated by the US Congress and not international law.
It has provisions in it that appear treaty-like but they are not legally subject to international law, they are subject to Congressional regulation.
You can’t talk about TPP yet because it’s not public. When it’s public, then that is the time to chime in.
But unlike Treaties which are only voted on by the Senate, the Constitution requires all laws that have to do with tax and revenue to BEGIN in the House of Representatives. So what we have here is something different from a Treaty. Now if you want to make an agreement with other nations you have double trouble.
I don't follow. If the U.S. breaches NAFTA, then what is Canada's remedy after adjudication? You would seem to suggest an equal and opposite breach, rather than enforcement/mandamus that a treaty might provide. Do I understand correctly? Retaliation is the example that Sen. Cruz gave yesterday.
NAFTA is written so that all parties understand that it is the US Congress that governs its current version subject to mutual intent and agreement. If Congress notifies the parties to the agreement that it intends to modify or sunset certain provisions, then a meeting is called to negotiate a revision. Everything is subject to US law.
If Canada were to declare a breach by the United States in the NAFTA agreement, they could file a suit for damages in a US federal court and the US Court after ascertaining appropriate jurisdiction would hear the case according to US law.
Treaties are regulated and governed wholly separate from US Courts. Breaches are usually subject to binding arbitration via a pre-specified venue that is written into the treaty. Damage awards are usually enforced via asset seizures and confiscations if a party is not forthcoming to honor the result of the binding arbitration.
The linked reference provided by the initiator of this thread has court case examples dealing with challenges to a trade agreement. One relevant paragraph is copied in post #14 above.
While off topic, after reading the linked article, I cannot understand why a prospective nuclear agreement with Iran would not be considered a treaty.
Did anyone other than the speaker of the house, the senate majority leader and the President of the United States sign the Nafta agreement?
TPP is not a house originated bill. It is an agreement originating from the executive branch.
If it is supposed to be a tax and revenue bill, then it is not being done constitutionally. But what else is new?
Now if you want to make an agreement with other nations you have double trouble.
No, you have a treaty. Treaties are an exception to the origination clause. Treaties originate with the president negotiating them and submitting the signed treaty to the Senate for ratification. The House is not involved.
My initial reason says the Senate must advise and consent at the 2/3rds level EXCEPT in executive agreements that are related to an already passed treaty. Congressional-Executive agreements bypass the Constitution, but the courts have upheld it since Congress acquiesced. The problem is that the 2/3rds rule was imposed to insure that a treaty was beneficial to the entire country and not to just to power bloc(s).
The overall thrust of the article seems to be indicating that the constitution isn’t being followed, but that has happened so often that Scotus now considers that to be the way things work. That is a mindset that needs to change.
I’m sure that Cruz, being a constitutional lawyer, operates on these understandings, so he deserves a bit of sympathy from us....but certainly not for agreeing to bad deals like Iran-Nuke and Obama Trade Power.
NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws – regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils.
NAFTA requires limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in our grocery stores; new patent rules that raised medicine prices; constraints on your local government's ability to zone against sprawl or toxic industries; and elimination of preferences for spending your tax dollars on U.S.-made products or locally-grown food.
It had to be signed by the leaders of three contries and ratified by all three nations.
How is this not a TREATY?
The article quotes the Constitution that ‘agreements’ are mentioned briefly, but that they are less than treaties. My sense from the quotes by Jay and Hamilton are that agreements are informal and treaties are formal, legal, document based for signatory approval by the participants.
So, NAFTA is without doubt in my mind a treaty. But SCOTUS will not enforce the Constitution on this based on a history of Congressional-Executive actions in which the Congress acquiesces and cedes its power to the executive.
So, original intent is set aside for expediency/power.
The only way you can come to the conclusion that agreements like NAFTA and TPP are not treaties is to take the position that the Constitution as written is archaic and that in light of new realities, the definitions of archaic terms must be interpreted in light of 20th Century or 21 Century "realities."
The principle argument of those who support Ted Cruz's position on TPA is that we need to deal with "realities" and that demanding that the TPP be considered a "treaty" is not consistent with that reality.
The fact of the matter is that NAFTA was fast tracked to avoid the 2/3 Senate Requirement. It got 63 votes instead of the required 67.
It has all the earmarks of a Treaty and carries all the force and effect of a treaty.
Those who argue differently are arguing for a "Living Constitution."
Because the orignal intent of the treaty making power of the President only applied to cease hostilities after a formal Declaration of War. It's part and parcel of being Commander in Chief.
It has nothing to do with commerce, trade, or agreements made to maintain the peace.
What it means is that there's no hoping Scotus will pull us out of this. It will have to be defeated in Congress.
My lurker friend just sent this quote out of CFR about NAFTA and TPP:
http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790Read the first sentence.
Then read the last sentence. Doubling down on the lie of “more jobs” the report states NAFTA will be replaced by TPP.
NAFTA’s Economic ImpactIntroduction
Twenty years after its implementation, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, has helped boost intraregional trade between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, but has fallen short of generating the jobs and the deeper regional economic integration its advocates promised decades ago. Trade relations have broadened substantially, and U.S. manufacturers created supply chains across North America that have made companies more globally competitive. These factors may have stimulated economic growth; Canada has expanded at the fastest average rate and Mexico at the slowest. But economists still debate NAFTA’s direct impact, given the many other economic forces at play and the possibility that trade liberalization might have happened even without the agreement. Both advocates and critics of the treaty have lobbied for changes to NAFTA, but momentum has stalled and is likely to be overtaken by larger trade agreements under negotiation such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
Me too. And it should not be secret.
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.