Posted on 06/18/2015 4:02:50 PM PDT by JOHN W K
CLICK HERE for the list of House Republicans who spat upon our Constitution today and ignored its expressed requirement for a two thirds approval vote for any deals cooked up by our president with foreign powers. In effect, these Republicans have unconstitutionally lowered the two thirds requirement to a simple majority to approve deals consummated by our president with foreign powers and engaged in the same despotic action the President has engaged in when signing Executive Orders that violate statutory law and/or our Constitution’s written provisions.
These Republican turncoat and lying scoundrels tell us that the Pacific Rim deal is not a treaty and therefore they are not required to observe the two thirds approval required by our Constitution for a treaty. But their lie is exposed when recalling the words of our founders with regard to the meaning of a treaty as they used and understood the word. So, what is meant by a “treaty” as expressed by our Founders?
In Federalist No. 64 Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:
”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”
And in Federalist No. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…”
Finally, In Federalist No. 22 Hamilton talks about “a treaty of commerce” as follows:
”A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade, though such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.”
The irrefutable fact is, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement falls within the meaning of a treaty as the word was used and understood by our founding fathers, and as such, requires a two thirds vote to become an enforceable contract, or bargain with the nations involved.
Our founding fathers, who lived under a despotic King, were fearful of creating an omnipotent president when framing our Constitution, and they carefully limited his powers significantly by a number of provisions in our Constitution, one being the two thirds vote requirement as mentioned above for treaties. And to give an example of how much our founders feared an omnipotent president, they even refused giving the President Line-Item Veto Power! And with respect to the reasons for this denial of power to the president, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how they suffered under that power. He says:
'”The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''
So, here we are today, and instead of our Republican members in the House being loyal to their oath of office, they reject a constitutional provision designed to insure there is a substantial support for any deals made by our president with foreign powers before they can become enforceable law. Not only have these 190 Republicans violated their oath of office, but they have engaged in a despotic act of tyranny!
We have been amply warned in THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, that:
"When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin."
BTW, here is the list of Senate Republicans who are acting in concert with the above mentioned Republican House members who are working to circumvent our written constitution and its documented legislative intent:
Alexander, Tenn.; Ayotte, N.H.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Blunt, Mo.; Boozman, Ark.; Burr, N.C.; Capito, W.V.; Cassidy, La.; Coats, Ind.; Cochran, Miss.; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Cotton, Ark.; Crapo, Idaho; Cruz, Texas; Daines, Mont.; Ernst, Iowa; Fischer, Neb.; Flake, Ariz.; Gardner, Colo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Hatch, Utah; Heller, Nev.; Hoeven, N.D.; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Johnson, Wis.; Kirk, Ill.; Lankford, Okla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Moran, Kan.; Murkowski, Alaska; Perdue, Ga.; Portman, Ohio; Risch, Idaho; Roberts, Kan.; Rounds, S.D.; Rubio, Fla.; Sasse, Neb.; Scott, S.C.; Sullivan, Alaska; Thune, S.D.; Tillis, N.C.; Toomey, Pa.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
Trump is a Democrat in sheep’s clothing. Don’t fall for his con.
Blah blah blah.
Who are you supporting in the election?
(just wondering)
LOL. Cruz of course. A real Republican. A Constitutional scholar.
Donald Trump is solid!! Don’t bet against THE DONALD!! If he punks out I will deal with this. But so far he is more solid than any of the guys you like. Like free traitor/H1B boy Ted Cruz? Don’t make me laugh!! No thanks!
My money is on The Donald!
Israelis have the most effective border fence. It is a see through fence that is heavily patrolled. Has tons of razor wire all around.
In urban areas the Israelis put up a concrete wall. But 90%+ of the border fence is the see through heavy heavy high cyclone fence with lots of sensors and instant response to would be intruders
JWK
My money is on The Donald!
++++
OK. I didn’t want to have to do this but I’m going to expose you to the dreaded (and now updated) STRANGE BEDFELLOWS LIST. Note that I’ve added Trump to your team and confirmed that Hillary is also on your side.
Here it is. Consider your bedfellows who, like you, oppose TPA:
Al Jazeera US
The Trade Unions
The Environmentalists
The Far Far Left
Bernie Sanders
Nancy Pelosi
Martin O’Malley
Hillary Clinton
Donald Trump
On my side:
Ronald Reagan
Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Scott Walker
Milton Freidman
A majority of Americans
An even bigger majority of Republicans
You might really ask yourself this question:
“Is what’s good for Al Jazeera good for AmerIca?”
Ted Cruz wants to do away with the IRS.
As for TPA, Cruz wants this authority for himself in 2017. It is a 6 year deal. In 2017 it would filibustered by the Dems and probably couldn’t pass. So the Cruz plan is to pass TPA and then reject Obamas TPP unless it is pristine by Cruz standards, an unlikely event IMHO.
I’m betting we will get a NO vote out of Cruz on ObamaTrade.
Yes, this is a slightly risky strategy but that’s the Cruz Plan.
I could care less that a bunch of Democrats, lefties and eco-wackos are against this bllsht TPA trade deal. I have you marked down as a loony libertarian free traitor. The Republicans voting for TPA have sold out to foreign lobbyists and domestic lobbyists.
___
Foreign Governments Pay Former Senate Leaders to Sell TPA
Japan’s aggressive lobbying efforts in Washington are part of an overall increase in foreign nations seeking to purchase influence in Washington.
http://observer.com/2015/06/many-foreign-governments-pay-k-street-big-money-to-peddle-tpp-to-congress/
___
FWIW I have been in the Pat Buchanan camp on immigration and trade for at least 25 years
Donald Trump is a giant. Ted Cruz is a punk who has shown his true stripes in the last few weeks. Such as being for boosting H1-B visas to 370,000 per year. This puts Americans out of jobs plus H1-B is a backdoor way of immigration abused mostly by Indians.
I have you marked down as a loony libertarian free traitor.
++++
You better check your premise here. The Loony Libertarians are dead set against TPA. The are on Your Side. Rand Paul voted No on TPA.
You are, by most definitions an isolationist. So are the Loonty Libertarians like Rand Paul. And the Leftists. And Al Jazerra and ...
Traitors list.
Donald Trump is a joke and a bad one. He is a natural Dem. I have no idea what he is doing chasing the Republican nomination.
Yep. I like the double speak that treaties are not treaties. Maybe next time they can call a treaty a Chevy and then it won’t be a treaty.
Every Republican, including Cruz and Rubio, who voted for this crap spat upon our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.
JWK
The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
I am somewhat of an isolationist. More so than all the trade crazy people in DC. If being against open borders and immigration invasions makes me an isolationist then great!
Tell me one trade deal that has not increased the US trade deficit. Name one!!
Best case scenario either Scott Walker or Donald Trump beats Hillary or any other Democrat nominee and becomes President
I suggest you read a little Milton Friedman or watch him on YouTube. I’m just not prepared to deal with every possible objection to Free Trade. The proof is in the pudding. I like the pudding. You don’t.
From previous posts on this subjects:
You pretty much need "fast track" in order to get any negotiated treaty passed, because you can't have a finished treaty be amended by congress, since that would require that version to be resubmitted back to the treaty partners for approval.
That said, it doesn't remove the Constitutional necessity of having a 2/3 majority to approve them.
Calling them "trade agreements" to get around the 2/3 requirements rather than simply having up/down votes on them as treaties is dishonest. Of course anyone who looks for honesty from our government is a fool who will ultimately be disappointed. Our feral government will do what it wants, when it wants to get what will most quickly enrich the oligarchy.
I think Cruz would have done better to have fought this from the perspective of this undermining of Constitutional authority. That would put him clearly on the side of supporting a 'fast track' provision for treaty negotiations, while at the same time opposing this particular legislation because it undermines the Constitution and the Senate's advice and consent powers/requirements.
In this particular case,what I'm saying is that these "agreements" easily pass the 'duck' test, being as how they walk, quack, and even fly like a duck. The senate should enforce the constitution by admitting the things are ducks, and handling them appropriately.
Simply calling it a "trade agreement" does not make it anything other than a treaty given the ramifications of the document.
I am against all dumbass trade deals....same as Donald Trump. Our trade deals are negotiated by self-enriching lobbyists. Check out our trade representatives. They go in and out of private sector lobbying/lawyering...from there in and out of the Federal Government.
This freaky looking dude is a fine example of a traitorous trade negotiator. He flits in and out between the private and public sectors. I have seen him doing his business for 20 years>>>>
Robert Zoellick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zoellick
Robert Bruce Zoellick is an American banker who was the eleventh president of the World Bank, a position he held from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2012. He was previously ...
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.