190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

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

Were I to approve something I hadn't read or had any direct involvement with, I would lose my professional license on grounds of professional malpractice.

This is nothing less than malfeasance! Why would one give up the ability to review and amend agreements before they are finalized? And especially allowing only a bare majority for approval, rather than the customary 2/3's? And especially to a tin-horn American-hating tyrant like this one? And we the People can't see the documents (much less than for the 5 days that Cryin' John B promised?

Our reps have joined the Occupier in shredding the Constitution and surrendering our sovereignty.

I'm done with the Repubs, and my rep. in particular. She's nothing but a token female for the House so-called leadership. No integrity, no sense of her obligation and duty to the Constitution. She's forgotten and forsaken the people that put her in office.

Not one thin dime, not red cent!

Sirius Lee wrote:

The Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not a militia weapon, despite the fact that the army used them as "trench guns". The Supremes ruled that homobamacare was Constitutional as a "tax".

You can either be a Conservative, or you can keep saying the things you do to excuse the shredding of our Constitution.

A-freaken men!

Our Supreme Court has used its power to pretend our Constitution means many things which our founders explicitly rejected when framing our Constitution. A case in point is the Kelo decision in which the Court actually admitted to making the Constitution mean which it thinks it should mean.

Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:

”… while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose”.

The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes :

”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”

And what is the fundamental rule regarding the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution?

“Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption… (my emphasis), see: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language

So, what is TexasFreepers point?

JWK

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling. :

Fox News ran an ad promoting Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority as being a conservative idea to advance free trade. The truth is, FTTPA is not a “conservative” idea nor is it about “free trade”. It’s about creating a managed trade, managed by a group unelected by the American People who represent the interests of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation, and a majority of whom are foreigners!

This crap started with the NAFTA, and for the proof of what I have just stated above see Establishment of Binational Panels which were created under the NAFTA, and who now regulate America's commerce with foreign nations instead of Congress [the States and People’s elected representatives] as mandated by our Constitution.

Fast Track Trade Authority is to enhance the above “managed trade”, which is not managed by the Congress of the United States [the States and People’s representatives] who have exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority is a proposal to circumvent Congress’ exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and have internationalists dictate the rules for America’s commerce with foreign nations.

JWK

To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

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.