Is TPA Constitutional?

Reclaim DC/ Ted Cruz ^ | May 24,2015 | David Serenda

[Theoria]

enumerated...DA

[GraceG]

[ Does it, or does it not take 2/3rds majority vote by Congress TODAY to pass a Trade treaty? ]

Let’s check the article:

[Forty-Four years later, the Congress passed the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1934 granting the President the authority to enter into agreements with foreign nations, without the approval of Congress. This vastly expanded the President’s power from the previous legislation passed in 1890. Given the expanded role granted to the President, the legislation was challenged and once again upheld by the courts and was upheld as constitutional.

With emerging markets around the world and new opportunities for trade with multiple nations, the Congress, citing limitations within the 1934 agreement, sought to establish new legislation that would allow for multinational negotiations. The 1974 Trade Act gave the President new powers to negotiate with multiple nations, but this time they built in provisions limiting the Presidents power to enter into agreements alone.

The Trade Act would require the President to seek Congressional approval from both houses, as well as follow a strict set of guidelines set forth by Congress in section 151 of the legislation. In return the President is guaranteed a vote by the Congress within a set period of time. ]

The last Sentence is troubling:

[ It also would remove the amendment process. ]

This is like saying you trust a liar to always speak the truth becuase this time he promised to tell you truth. I don;t trust congress to reform itself. EVER!

[GraceG]

[ Where is the numerated power of a agreement in the Constitution for a President? The only power the Pres has is with Treaties.

SCOTUS also sided with Obamacare and other unconstitutional actions. ]

Here is what scares me, let me break this down:

[ The Trade Act would require the President to seek Congressional approval from both houses, as well as follow a strict set of guidelines set forth by Congress in section 151 of the legislation. In return the President is guaranteed a vote by the Congress within a set period of time. It also would remove the amendment process. ]

(breakdown)

[ The Trade Act would require the President to seek Congressional approval from both houses ]

By what measure, a simple majority vote by each house, approval by the majority leaders of each house, or “approval by some trade related committee in each house”???

[ as well as follow a strict set of guidelines set forth by Congress in section 151 of the legislation. ]

Strict by what measure is strict and do you trust congress to even SET those guidelines?

[ In return the President is guaranteed a vote by the Congress within a set period of time. ]

If the set period of time expires, what then, does it automatically get rejected or approved by fiat???

[ It also would remove the amendment process. ]

How the hell is a bill supposed to legally supersede THAT?

[SoConPubbie]

Let’s check the article:

Here is the relevant part of the article you missed which makes it clear that Trade Treaties, since 1890, do not need a 2/3rds vote:

Before explaining TPA, it is helpful to understand the difference between a U.S.Treaty and a Congressional-Executive Act. Throughout our history America has entered into many treaties covering everything from war to trade. Typically treaties are reserved for negotiating foreign policy agreements between individual countries.

Treaties are negotiated by the President without input from Congress. Once a treaty is completed and signed, the President submits the proposed treaty to the Senate only, for a 2/3 majority vote. There is no vote in the House of Representatives to approve a treaty. Also, there is no guarantee that the Senate will even take up the treaty negotiated by the President.

President George Washington found this to be the case when he submitted his first treaty to the Senate. As he waited outside the chamber for them to consider his treaty with the American Indians, the Senate instead refused to acknowledge it and left without considering it.

The use of treaties for trade has been almost nonexistent after 1890 when the Congress gave the President authority to negotiate tariffs and suspend duty free tariffs. That decision was challenged and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld that Congress did not usurp their constitutional powers to the President. This decision would serve as the basis for legislation that would give and restrict the President’s power over the years.

This later became known as the Congressional-Executive Act, which differentiated itself from a treaty which requires the 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. It is this Congressional-Executive Act that has been used for almost every American trade deal since the 1890’s.

[skeeter]

I have read the article.

What current problem will this bill correct, specifically?

[itsahoot]

Which effectively trumps the secrecy issue.

Sure it does.

"You have to pass it to find out what is in it."

[Amendment10]

"This later became known as the Congressional-Executive Act, which differentiated itself from a treaty which requires the 2/3 majority vote in the Senate. It is this Congressional-Executive Act that has been used for almost every American trade deal since the 1890’s."

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Patriots need to understand that they need to check the constitutionality all official actions that that the federal government has ever done since the Constitution was ratified, the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890 which I think is the Congressional-Executive Act no exception . This is because there have been constitutional scandals since the George Washington was president. And activist justices were certainly alive and kicking when they gave Congress a green light for “creating new powers” for the president regarding tariffs in the late 1800s.

The bottom line is that any time that we hear about new powers in DC, if there’s no new constitutional amendment associated with those new powers then something is probably very wrong.

Again, “new powers” in DC have been happening since before the ink on the Constitution had dried.

[free_life]

When was the last trade agreement that did not result in the loss of jobs here in the US?

Corporations want cheap labor because it produces more profit but want to keep the US consumer market wide open to the products they manufacture in these low wage countries. Every trade agreement in my lifetime has resulted in massive loss of jobs here and has created an unequal playing field ... we buy foreign products and services and they buy little to nothing from us...that is not trade, that is economic suicide.

Congress is bought and paid for.

Here’s how much corporations paid US senators to fast-track the TPP bill
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3294001/posts

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/may/27/corporations-paid-us-senators-fast-track-tpp

[Lil Flower]

It’s amazing to me how quickly people will trust Obama and our secretive,backroom dealing government just to lick the boots of one man.

You know, Cruz is just a man. He’s not Jesus. And He’s the ONLY ONE I trust.

[i_robot73]

There’s a HUGE chasm between passed, Lawful and Constitutional.

I’m still trying to noodle out how ‘All equal under the Law’ still jives with the Exempt Class of Congress. But, I guess, when one realizes where ones’ paycheck comes from, the oligarchy of black robes could rule no different.

My one true depressing point: We have not yet ‘stormed the gates’ to oust (or better) those that no longer protect our Republic, Rights, Freedom and Liberty.

[Lil Flower]

Agreed.