Posted on 12/05/2001 4:53:56 AM PST by Starmaker
I don't agree with your interpretation of advise. For example, advise could mean telling the president that you will not vote for a trade agreement if it includes certain provisions.
This silly argument is floated as an attempt to block additional trade agreements and to rally support against them as somehow an affront to the Constitution.
The fact of the matter is that Congress has the exclusive right to set the rules for itself regarding how it debates and passes legislation. Fast Track is nothing more than a specific set of those rules to apply to a specific type of legislation.
The assertion that this is somehow unconstitutional is utterly bogus and is intended to mask the true agenda of those who assert it.
It's just like any other bill that the President gives to Congress. Until Congress passes it, it is merely a proposal.
Then they are stil exercising the Constitutional authority granted them. Period. Phyllis, and the rest of you are WRONG. That is how agreements should be done, 535 people making sure their pork is added or gotten, while a trade bill is negotiated is nonsense.
If it's a good agreement pass it. Or Vote it down and ask the Exec, to have it changed
Guys, On commerce agreements with foreign nations, it is the administration's obligation to "advise" Congress, not the other way around. Congress is supposed to do the negotiating, NOT the final "approval or disapproval". DG, has given an Orwellian {upside down and backwards} "interpretation" to the duties given the two branches of the U.S. of A. government UNDER the Constitution with its attendant amendments. Peace and love, George.
DG, That is pure unadulterated bullshit propogated and nourished by YOU "socialist globalists". And, "A trade agreement negotiated by the Administration is introduced as legislation by a lawmaker. That's how it works." is NOT how it is supposed to work according to the U.S. of A. Constitution. It is BACKWARDS!! It IS how treaties are supposed to be ratified between the administration {president} and the 100 people in the Senate. But, these "agreements" are NOT "treaties"! Peace and love, George.
You don't appear to know, so I'll tell you.
It is to carry out the functions authorized by the Constitution and by Congress.
That includes administering trade. That means negotiating trade agreements.
Think about it.
H1, On BOTH the "free" trade agreements "Fast Tracked" through Congress thus far, there was NO way of Congress knowing if the agreements were "a good agreement" or not. The bills were not printed and given to members of Congress before the vote. On at least one of the votes, there was ONE copy with "markers sticking out all through it" when the vote to pass or not [amendments or even debate was NOT allowed} was taken by the members of the House. It immediately went to the Senate to be voted on, and then to the President to sign. And, as Al Gore said, "I've only had to vote two times as VP, and 'we've' won both votes." Al gore. A 90s conservative. Peace and love, George.
What did I say that can possibly be construed as socialist?
I understand the "globalist" charge, because in the isolationist protectionist mindset, any trade agreement is considered something out of the NWO. That's utter nonsense, but at least I understand the argument.
But I'm no socialist and don't particularly appreciate that accusation.
Q, Yep. But in "treaties" ONLY. And, for some reason, the powers that be DO NOT want these "agreements" to be treaties with just the President and the Senate being Responsible. They want to pass the buck to Representatives who have NO say in the matter except to vote up or down. SLIMEY!! Peace and love, George.
That's pushing it far away from the original intent, but as I've said, that's the direction it has been going for the last 200+ years with Supreme Court support. Fast Track is really the logical conclusion of the trend and could easily be Constitutional, depending on the Supreme Court accepting your argument, which is quite likely.
Personally, I have as yet no firm position on Fast Track, I was merely discussing Constitutional legalities.
Sorry, the " limited combined knowledge and wisdom of 535 people composing all of Congress {When compared to the knowledge and wisdom of the collective world}" will likely decide to authorize George to manage this trade agreement despite your " demand that public debate in Congress of each section of any agreement, and changes if necessary be allowed."
Absolutely nothing in the constitution prohibits them from selecting a manager of the process.
Absolutely nothing in the constitution prohibits them from limiting debate after the selection process has taken place.
If they choose, they could rescind the manager's authority or change the debate rules. It's clearly within their constitutionally defined authority.
In this case Congress knows their limitations and has found a Constitutional method of exercising their authority.
DG, To be called things that do not fit does seem to get under one's skin. But, As I wrote before, these "free" trade agreements are indeed socialist in nature. And, having those few in the background make policy to be voted up or down {Fast Tracked} by the people's Representatives is indeed as socialist as was the former{?} U.S.S.R. with their politburo. If you want to further globalism with my help, I suggest you use the United States of America Constitution with its attendant amendments as a base rather than the socialist idea of the few making the decisions for the whole. I will oppose the "free" traders of today till my dieing breath.
There is NOTHING free about these "free" trade agreements. NOTHING!!! Those few making "fair" trade policy today and in the past make it for themselves and their percieved "friends" only rather than for the people as a whole, as the Representatives would tend to do. And, the "people as a whole" includes those making policy today and their friends. Peace and love, George.
You are correct. He is his daddy's boy, that's for sure.
DG, I may be wrong, but isn't the Department of Commerce an administration development rather than a creation of Congress?? As far as negotiating these "free" trade agreements to date, it has been the role of "blue-ribbon" trade commissions appointed by the Secretary of Commerce with input ONLY from the administration, and LITTLE oversight by Congress which Fast Track is DESIGNED to facillitate a continuance of. Peace and love, George..
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.