Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)
6-18-15 | johnwk

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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 114th; fasttrack; pacificrim; tpp; trade; treason
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last

1 posted on 06/18/2015 4:02:50 PM PDT by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

it’s not a treaty.


2 posted on 06/18/2015 4:06:16 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (You can't spell Hillary without using the letters L, I, A, & R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
It can't be a bad thing, after all John McCain is for it!

Along with the other conservatives Cruz and Rubio.
3 posted on 06/18/2015 4:06:24 PM PDT by novemberslady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Behold the Face of the GOP sellout of all America,
and the US Constitution for the empowerment of Obama Tyranny
and of globalists, on ObamaTRADE (passed today):


4 posted on 06/18/2015 4:06:25 PM PDT by Diogenesis ("When a crime is unpunished, the world is unbalanced.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Liberals...using commerce to undermine the Constitution since 1789.


5 posted on 06/18/2015 4:06:35 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Scott Walker - a more conservative governor than Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

It’s not a treaty because they don’t call it a treaty.


6 posted on 06/18/2015 4:07:46 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (A free society canÂ’t let the parameters of its speech be set by murderous Islamists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Now the Iran letter suggested that “agreements” between foreign nations and the Congress (negotiated by the executive branch) are not all that rare, and that NAFTA was not the first. True??

Now, yes, “treaties” do require 2/3 of the Senate.

Do I understand correctly that, in order to repeal an “agreement,” that all it would take would be majority of both houses and assent of the President, or 2/3 of both houses; but to repeal a “treaty” it would require renegotiation with the foreign power?


7 posted on 06/18/2015 4:08:12 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Trump told us the GOP, Dems and Government are literally robbing America while economically gang banging what’s left of the American middle class.

It’s why the party groupies, party insiders, influence peddlers and ruling class did back flips when Trump gave his speech.

These people in D.C. have been bought and paid for.


8 posted on 06/18/2015 4:08:37 PM PDT by dragnet2 (Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and craps like a duck, ITS A DUCK!


9 posted on 06/18/2015 4:11:14 PM PDT by ZULU (Boehner and McConnell are Obama's Strumpets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

If the European Union is the EU

Does that mean we are about to part of something with the acronym PU?!


10 posted on 06/18/2015 4:11:29 PM PDT by BlackAdderess ("Give me a but a firm spot on which to stand, and I shall move the earth". --Archimedes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Looks like this important news just got sidelined by another convenient shooting report.


11 posted on 06/18/2015 4:12:07 PM PDT by Republican1795.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

Yep. Wars are not really wars and treaties are not really treaties.


12 posted on 06/18/2015 4:12:16 PM PDT by Mr. N. Wolfe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
It's not a treaty it's an executive agreement (similar to an executive order) and can be repealed by the next president the same as any other executive order.

The Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of executive agreements in 1937.

13 posted on 06/18/2015 4:12:27 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (You can't spell Hillary without using the letters L, I, A, & R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dragnet2

And we have class of people in congress that does not appreciate our vote at all.


14 posted on 06/18/2015 4:13:45 PM PDT by Karl Spooner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
There must be big forces at work here causing these conservatives to go right along with a treaty that will be detrimental to United State sovereignty. My understanding is that we are in the midst of an zero-sum existential global currency war. Perhaps our leaders are desperate to maintain dollar hegemony. However I cannot help but think of this verse in the Bible...

Revelation 17:17 For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree * , and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled .
15 posted on 06/18/2015 4:13:48 PM PDT by Jan_Sobieski (Sanctification)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

A little bit of history on executive agreements like this:

Prior to 1940 the U.S. Senate had ratified 800 treaties and presidents had made 1,200 executive agreements; from 1940 to 1989, during World War II and the Cold War, presidents signed nearly 800 treaties but negotiated more than 13,000 executive agreements.

Everyone needs to just calm the heck down about all this. You are being spun by Trumps minions.


16 posted on 06/18/2015 4:14:50 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (You can't spell Hillary without using the letters L, I, A, & R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis

Screw the feckless GOP


17 posted on 06/18/2015 4:15:25 PM PDT by Breto (Stranger in a strange land... where did America go?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I’m proud of my rep, Andy Harris. He voted “no” today.


18 posted on 06/18/2015 4:15:40 PM PDT by sauropod (I am His and He is mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

A majority cannot vote away the constitutional right of the 1/3 to nix a treaty. If so, we could pass a whole bunch of amendments anytime we want.


19 posted on 06/18/2015 4:17:39 PM PDT by Defiant (Amtrak train derails, therefore......Republicans.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Bookmark


20 posted on 06/18/2015 4:18:07 PM PDT by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-129 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson