There are some issues that cannot be ignored. Giving Obama more power and losing our sovereignty are not okay, or no big deal.
Totally false, as Watson and I explained last year:
FTAs embody unenforceable promises governments make to each other. Domestic governmentshere, Congressretain the sole authority to ignore those promises and violate international commitments, and they (unfortunately) do so frequently. Foreign governments cannot force their trading partners to comply with the terms of an FTAthe only extra-national consequence of a violation is that other parties to the agreement may abrogate their commitments in a commensurate amount (e.g., by raising tariffs on imports from the United States from levels that were lowered in the FTA). Moreover, every U.S. trade agreement permits the parties to act outside the agreed disciplines in the name of, among other things, national security, public health and safety, or environmental protection. Thus, the idea that TPA and FTAs violate U.S. sovereignty or regulatory autonomy is patently false.
These principles hold true for the TPP, including its dispute settlement and controversial investor-state provisions. Despite what Warren (and some media outlets) would like you to believe, there is nothingabsolutely nothingthat can force the United States to comply with an adverse dispute settlement ruling issued under the TPP or any other U.S. trade agreement. Period.
But, hey, if you dont believe me, heres Attorney General Meese again:
Future trade deals would not be unconstitutional, nor would they undermine U.S. sovereignty, if they contained an agreement to submit some disputes to an international tribunal for an initial determination. The United States will always have the ultimate say over what its domestic laws provide. No future agreement could grant an international organization the power to change U.S. laws.
A ruling by an international tribunal that calls a U.S. law into question would have no domestic effect unless Congress changes the law to comply with the ruling. If Congress rejects a ruling or fails to act, other countries might impose a trade sanction or tariff, but they are more likely to impose high tariffs now without any agreement. The fact remains that no international body or foreign government may change any American law. Moreover, Congress may override an entire agreement at any time by a simple statute. Nations also may withdraw from international agreements by executive action alone. That is one reason why such agreements do not interfere with the underlying sovereignty of each nation to chart its own course in the world. In short, the U.S. Constitution and any laws and treaties we enact in accordance thereto are the only supreme law of our land.
If thats not clear enough for you, then I dont know what is.
Totally false. As already noted above (and reiterated here by Catos Dan Ikenson and here by the Congressional Research Service), Congress under TPA retains total control over the international trade authority granted to it by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Any trade agreement negotiated by the president (which he has constitutional authority to do under Article II) still must be approved by Congress.
As noted by the CRS, TPA reflects decades of debate, cooperation, and compromise between Congress and the executive branch in finding a pragmatic accommodation to the exercise of each branchs respective authorities over trade policy. It represents a gentlemans agreement between the legislative branch and the executive branchwith the former promising the latter fast track rules for the requisite congressional approval of an FTA, if, and only if, the latter (i) agrees to follow a detailed set of congressional negotiating objectives for the agreements content; and (ii) engages in a series of consultations with Congress on that content. As discussed more fully below, each branch of government retains its constitutional authority to abandon this gentlemans agreement, but doing so will essentially kill any hope of signing and implementing new FTAs. So, with limited exceptions, Congress and the executive toe the line.
Because neither branch gets expansive new powers or short-changed, Congress has granted every U.S. president since FDR some form of trade negotiating authority (source):
Pretty boring when you think about it, huh?
There’s nothing about TPA or FTA’s that gives Obie more power than he has.
Any trade agreement must be approved by Congress, that has been argued to death.
What makes anyone think Obie won’t try anything he wants to. Nothing and no one has stopped him yet.
There’s only so much he can do by EO, then it’s in Congresses court.
Is there any indication Boehner or McConnell will oppose him?
They would rather crush conservatives.
In addition to the specifics I mentioned in my earlier post to you, the 2015 TPA Bill includes language reinforcing our sovereignty and also includes the Cruz/ Sessions language on immigration.
Comparing it to previous TPA’s, this one is much better.