If he votes for TPA, supporting the Obama agenda and the loss of sovereignty, it will be overlooked by his supporters and they will spit venom at anyone who mentions it. Cruz will then give a speech on revitalizing the Constitution.
Cruz vote for TPA, I forgot:
After Cruz votes for TPA, his supporters will really get right with the world by slamming Trump.
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.