Posted on 06/17/2015 8:39:34 AM PDT by TNMOUTH
“Anything to do with our current WH occupant must be viewed with suspicion.”
and what if Hillary gets the next 4-8 years?
...He [POTUS]shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
Yes, Congress can amend it as much as they want.
Yes, Congress can amend it as much as they want
Which is why trade agreements are not implemented as treaties but as congressional-executive agreements.
The time for congressional input on the negotiation is before it's concluded, If Congress doesn't like the way the President acted on their input they can choose not to approve the agreement.
That will mean Bill can start dating again.
I think we all understand the HERITAGE Report. However, that was then and this is now. People then, were not shaking in their boots under a Marxist.
Our country seems to be at a tipping point now. There is no tolerance for placing any more power in the hands of this president.
I don’t know why you people blow right past that. Fear matters. Did the Heritage Report measure that?
Don’t let yourself be used by TPP proponents trying to pass a mystery meat bill. TPA is a way for TPP, TTIP, and TISA to be crammed down with only a perfunctory period for public comment.
Those trade agreements need to be brought out to the open and stopped cold.
You know things are bad when even Democrats won’t empower their own prez. %8x)
As for Ed Meese. Defenders are having to reach into the Stone Age to find explainers that approve of Obama in the driver’s seat on this deal. Somehow, they all seem to think we are against a trade deal, per se. (Okay, so I’m approaching Stone Age.)
We don’t need a history lesson on Trade, or tutoring on process. We need a different president. No one can guarantee this one, and that fact should matter.
Stay dry, wherever you are! :)
No, we know about Obama.
But, this actually came about in 1992...right before Clinton. Now, Clinton ain’t as bad as Obama, but let’s not pretend that Far Leftist Presidents havent’ had this power.
True insult to everybody’s intelligence.
They (politicians) assume everybody as dumb as Obama voters.
Enjoy your chains.
I was just reading about Moochell going on a $600,000 vacation on taxpayer’s dime. If Bill gets back in the whitehouse, we will be paying for those dates. : (
I always enjoy my chains of thoughts. Thank you!
I hope you do the same with your chains.
By tailoring his disinformation to appeal to conservatives, the career Democrat operative is attempting to make the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) toxic to Republicans.
Lachlan Markay of the Washington Free Beacon looked into the group behind the anti- TPP website, ObamaTrade.com, and found it is funded by Curtis Ellis, the progressive three-time Dem candidate for Congress.
Curtis Ellis leads a group called the American Jobs Alliance that vehemently opposes the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and “fast-track” authority that would expedite its congressional consideration. Ellis calls the latter “ObamaTrade.”
Under threat of trade retaliation from Canada and Mexico, the House has voted to to repeal a law requiring country-of-origin labels on packages of beef, pork and poultry.Clink clink clink.The World Trade Organization rejected a U.S. appeal last month, ruling the labels that say where animals were born, raised and slaughtered are discriminatory against the two U.S. border countries.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has said it's up to Congress to change the law to avoid retaliation from the two countries.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150611/us-congress-meat-labeling-11265046c4.html
Exactly. Just because it's Constitutional doesn't mean it's good. There's a ton of "Constitutional" stuff that's extremely bad for this country.
TPA forces bad provisions to remain, because the agreement can't be amended.
To me, this artificial creation of pressure to pass is just a bad idea in general.
Congress is supposed to be a deliberative body. So let them deliberate over all these provisions written and engineered by various special interests who, believe it or not, mihgt not have the best interests of the People in mind.
Let the world wait for the USA.
And if they want to proceed without us, then see where that gets them.
They ALL want access to our markets.
So let them wait, and let Congress slog through it like the deliberative body they're supposed to be.
"Hurry! Hurry! Hurry! It's an emergency! We have to get this done NOW or the universe will explode!"
What a crock...
Please cite the constitutional authority to create congressional-executive agreements.
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. I'm not a constitutional scholar but here's Ed Meese and the Heritage foundation explaining why in their view TPA is constitutional:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3301189/posts
Here's another analysis giving some good history of these agreements:
The constitution does not allow the federal government to approach such problems by being creative.
If trade is not a treaty, then trade belongs to the states.
Since, we know the states could not do trade agreements, they must fall under one of the enumerated powers.
The federal government does not get to invent powers.
The courts have been wrong on this, like they have been on so many issues in the past.
The mere fact that they want to make it easier to pass a trade bill than to kill it should be all you need to know this is subversive to the process.
Since, we know the states could not do trade agreements, they must fall under one of the enumerated powers.
So you're seriously saying that the only way for the federal government to address international trade is via treaty? The House could never have any say in legislating international trade activity?
There have been over 5000 international agreements implemented this way, very few have been challenged and none have been ruled unconstitutional. And don't forget this isn't the act of one rogue Supreme Court - it's been the norm for over 100 years.
We can say everyone is misinterpreting the constitution but us, but when it's you vs. Reagan's attorney general it's probably more productive to deal with the reality - everyone that matters in our system say's congressional-executive agreements constitutional.
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.