Nobody especially cares whether it’s Constituional. People oppose it because it sucks for America and Americans, and is bound to be gamed by insiders like every other damned thing in this corrupt government.
People need to stop disguising corporate welfare and statism as free trade.
Apart from “all previous presidents never promoted trade agreements” fallacy, why does this president need this special authority then? Can’t he do more with less?
Esp. these past 10 - 15 years, the name of any bill is exactly opposite of what it was intent to do.
Affordable Care, Community Restoration, Economic Stimulus, etc. etc. ....
Agreements need to be made available to review.
That does not mean that amendments can be made - but it does mean that whatever is negotiated in the agreement will be public before a vote. It would also have the effect of making sure that no amendments would be desired to the extent that the agreement would be denied.
We do not like the secrecy.
Perhaps the author is unaware of this case:
WTO Rules Against Country of Origin Meat Leveling in U.S.
Or maybe he's just a liar.
“It is extremely difficult for any U.S. President to negotiate significant trade deals if he cannot assure other nations that Congress will refrain from adding numerous amendments and conditions that must then be taken back to the negotiating table. Congress has not granted TPA for seven years—which is one reason why the United States is a party to only three of 131 trade and investment agreements currently in force worldwide.”
Given our current half-breed president, I’d say not giving him “trade authority” is a good thing!
The fear is that “sovereignty”, today, under this president, now means only HIM.
What was true yesterday is NOT true today. We have evidence!
So, the defenders use the abused Constitution, the SCOTUS, and even George Washington, and now Ed Meese for the lipstick, when none of the above applies today, under this president, this Congress, this SCOTUS, this Asian “pivot”.
Including the damn bad timing.
Thanks for this
I will read it later when I have time
Maybe they cover this but why is this something that has to be voted on for each trade deal?
I assume it was granted to other Presidents for other deals
Why does it have to come up again?
If TPA was constitutional Obama would be trying to circumvent it.
I’ve had enough of reading these long winded talking-point essays designed to placate conservatives. Let me read the treaty (and it most certainly is a treaty) whose passage TPA will make inevitable, or STFU.
Climate change regulations will come in via this giant door, especially because of the up or down votes. While TPA restricts Congress from amendments, it doesn’t stop the Exec from cramming whatever it wants into the package.
Therefore, if Congress wants to strip something out by amendment, TPA makes it impossible.
TPA proves the time has come to eliminate the ruling class and reboot.
The thing about the Constitution is that is allows people to do badly ill-advised things if they want to. In this particular instance it is a case of our elected officials inflicting ill-advised things on an unwilling constituency.
A red hearing. Wrong argument. It is not a matter of constitutional right or wrong. It’s a matter of the U.S. Congress sherking it’s duty and giving a president (regardless of party) total control over what is negotiated, then only having the ability to approve or disapprove without any amendments.
The old saying, if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem!
Internationalizing the resources of the United States.
“Free Trade” is nothing more than cronyism. Quit trying to pretend it's not.
TiSA looks like an even worse deal,
you hate your presidents immigration executive orders,
you can (that is to say must) keep your presidents immigration executive orders (and all of its new friends!).
What are TPA and TPP?
TPA stands for Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track”. TPA is a process by which trade agreements are approved by Congress. Through TPA, Congress sets out up-front objectives for the Executive branch to achieve in free trade negotiations; in exchange for following those objectives, Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade agreements without amendments. For the past 80 years, it has proven virtually impossible to negotiate free-trade agreements without the fast-track process.
TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is a specific trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States and 11 other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China is not a negotiating partner. There is no final language on TPP because negotiations are still ongoing and have been since late 2009. Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP. There will be no vote on TPP until the negotiations are over and the final agreement is sent to Congress.
Some Key Facts:
Does TPA give up the Senate’s treaty power?
No. Under the Constitution, there are two ways to make binding law: (1) through a treaty, ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, or (2) through legislation passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress. TPA employs the second constitutional path, as trade bills always have done. It has long been recognized that the Constitution’s Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives’ involvement.
Does the United States give up Sovereignty by entering into TPP?
No. Nothing in the agreement forces Congress to change any law. TPA explicitly provides that nothing in any trade agreement can change U.S. law. Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law, and Congress is the only entity that can change U.S. law. Nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.
Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPP?
Senator Cruz has not taken a position either in favor or against TPP. He will wait until the agreement is finalized and he has a chance to study it carefully to ensure that the agreement will open more markets to American-made products, create jobs, and grow our economy. Senator Cruz has dedicated his professional career to defending U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. He will not support any trade agreement that would diminish or undermine either.
Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPA?
Yes. Senator Cruz voted in favor of TPA earlier this year because it breaks the logjam that is preventing the U.S. from entering into trade deals that are good for American workers, American businesses, and our economy. Ronald Reagan emphatically supported free trade, and Senator Cruz does as well. He ran for Senate promising to support free trade, and he is honoring that commitment to the voters.
Free trade helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers; indeed, one in five American jobs depends on trade, in Texas alone 3 million jobs depend on trade. When we open up foreign markets, we create American jobs.
TPA also strengthens Congress’ hand in trade negotiations, and provides transparency by making the agreement (including TPP) public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on any final agreement. Without TPA, there is no such transparency, and the Congress’ role in trade agreements is weaker.
Is TPA Constitutional?
TPA and similar trade authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional for more than 100 years.
Does TPA give the President more authority?
No. TPA ensures that Congress has the ability to set the objectives up-front for free trade agreements.
Trade Promotion Authority has been used to reduce trade barriers since FDR. When Harry Reid took over the Senate, he killed it. History demonstrates that it is almost impossible to negotiate a free-trade agreement without TPA. Right now without TPA, America is unable to negotiate free-trade agreements, putting the United States at a disadvantage to China, which is taking the lead world-wide. It is not in America’s interests to have China writing the rules of international trade.
Moreover, Obama is going to be president for just 18 more months. TPA is six-year legislation. If we want the next president (hopefully a Republican) to be able to negotiate free-trade agreements to restart our economy and create jobs here at home then we must reinstate TPA. With a Republican president in office, Senate Democrats would almost certainly vote party-line to block TPA, so now is the only realistic chance.
How can Senator Cruz trust Obama?
He doesn’t. Not at all. No part of Senator Cruz’s support for TPA was based on trusting Obama. However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress. If the Obama Administration tries to do something terrible in a trade agreement, Congress can vote it down. And most congressional Democrats will always vote no—because union bosses oppose free trade, so do most Democrats—which means a handful of conservative congressional Republicans have the votes to kill any bad deal. That’s a serious check on presidential power.
Isn’t TPP a “living agreement”?
That particular phrase—a foolish and misleading way to put it—is found in the “summary” portion of one particular section of the draft agreement. That section allows member nations to amend the agreement in the future, expressly subject to the approval of their governments. Thus, if some amendment were proposed in the future, Congress would have to approve it before it went into effect.
But isn’t TPA a secret agreement?
No, it is not. The full text of TPA (fast track) is public. What the Senate just voted for was TPA, not TPP.
Right now, the text of TPP is classified. That is a mistake. Senator Cruz has vigorously called on the Obama administration to make the full text of TPP open to the public immediately. The text being hidden naturally only fuels concerns about what might be in it. Senator Cruz has read the current draft of TPP, and it should be made public now.
Critically, under TPA, TPP cannot be voted on until after the text has been public for 60 days. Therefore, everyone will be able to read it long before it comes up for a vote.
Couldn’t Obama use a trade agreement to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants?
No. There is one section of TPP that concerns immigration, but it affects only foreign nations—the United States has explicitly declined to sign on to that section.
Moreover, Senator Cruz introduced a TPA amendment to expressly prohibit any trade deal from attempting to alter our immigration laws.
Two Republican Senators (Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul) blocked the Senate’s consideration of that amendment, but the House of Representatives has agreed to include that language in the final text of the trade legislation. Thus, assuming the House honors that public commitment, federal law will explicitly prohibit any trade deal from impacting immigration.
And, regardless, no trade agreement can change U.S. law; only Congress can change U.S. law.
That is how the Founders wanted it. Equal branches of government having equal input into any agreements. The President does not have the power to negotiate on behalf of this nation by himself. Congress gets to add their input....especially at the end, before the deal is complete....and certainly not in a "take it or leave it" vote.
Without TPA, the President is denied an equal footing when he attempts to negotiate trade agreements on behalf of America.
Boo-hoo! Our President does not speak for the nation or have more power than anyone else. If other nations like dictators, let them have them...we do not need to follow suit.
The TPA legislation currently being debated (H.R. 3005) is clearly constitutional because Congress retains its authority to approve or reject all future trade agreements.
LIE!!! It takes only 51 votes to approve a trade deal and 60 to kill it versus the Constitutional 67 to ratify.
The Constitution grants each house of Congress the authority to establish its own rules of procedure, and it makes perfect sense for Congress to limit itself to straight up-or-down votes on certain resolutions, such as base closures and its own adjournment motions.
Unfortunately, this is not a resolution....but a binding TREATY with another nation....and Congress does not have the authority to change its Constitutional powers, which specifically say a treaty must be ratified by 67 votes in the Senate.
The bottom line here folks, is that there is a whole lotta money involved in these trade deals. Many people are going to enrich themselves. They will kick some of that money into the campaigns of those who support this travesty.
But, because the old, outdated Constitutional method for ratifying agreements with other nations is too DIFFICULT, the greedy have conspired together to shortcut the Constitutional protections and create this Fast Track nonsense so they can ram through trade deal after trade deal with little or no consideration for the welfare of this nation or its citizens.
<”The Constitution grants each house of Congress the authority to establish its own rules of procedure, and it makes perfect sense for Congress to limit itself to straight up-or-down votes on certain resolutions, such as base closures and its own adjournment motions.”>
How is it that what “each house” is supposed to do by itself is being done for both together by law? Isn’t the Constitution superior to such a law? If such a law were effective, it would mean that each house could not, by itself (without the agreement of the other house and of the President), re-assume its power to exercise its legislative power on the parts of a trade agreement. That seems to me to mean that each house would have diminished its powers.