Posted on 06/11/2015 5:23:08 AM PDT by xzins
“It’s declassified and made public once it’s agreed to,” Ryan said of Obamatrade in Rules Committee testimony on Wednesday during questioning from Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) .
Remember when the Democrats, then the Republicans promised to post all bills on the internet for 5 days before debating/voting?
This is as worthless a promise as that.....and you are falling for it, just as they hope.
Well, I can't say for sure what the consequences would be but unlike the other promise you referenced this would be a blatant violation of the law (assuming they pass TPA). The TPA legislates a period between publication of the text and the vote. If we've become that lawless than none of this other stuff matters anyway.
There are links to a summary and full text of the TPA here: Senate Finance Committee
That is false. Notwithstanding the legislative differences, 0bama wasn't president. We didn't have a president that wants to screw us at every opportunity.
He is not looking out for us.
The process has been the same under many presidents, including Obama.
..... Republicans are being played for fools again.
.... Heck ..... Being fooled does not make you a fool. You only become a fool when you continuously fall for the same shit.
Thank God the R’s won in a landslide last election. I can feel the freedoms flowing back to us already.
Good to have transparency and common sense back in the law making process.
America - what a country.
Really? Has the process previously included executive powers wrt amnesty?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3299149/posts>
Good question. No negotiating partner would put their best and final position forward knowing that the US Congress could come back and change the deal. This would result endless negotiations.
We don't really know what this first vote is for.
It's secret!
Right now, TiSA and T-TIP text are completely secretive and unavailable for even members of Congress to read while TPP text is available for members to review—although they need to go to a secret room inside the Capitol where only members of Congress and certain staffers high-level security clearances, who can only go when members are present, can read the bill.
Thats an opinion, yes. But under the law there’s an assumption (”Regularity”) that the President and other leaders of the government are acting legitimately within the scope and responsibilites of their offices.
So saying “I don’t like/trust Obama” isn’t good enough.
What IS good enough is asking whether this is a typical trade deal or something much larger and more institutionally invasive. I think it is. And this believe that TPA needs to be modified (back to 67 vote threshold) to account for it.
Don't conflate the process with the content of the legislation.
There’s an old book titled “Showdown at Gucci Gulch” about the process to get Reagans tax reform passed and how special interests and lobbyists distorted the process start to finish.
It’s a must-read book for Conservatives, IMHO.
It also speaks to the inability of the Congress to resist such pressures. Which would only be exacerbated in a far-reaching international treaty (er, agreement) situation.
So I see the need for both secrecy (to shut out outside influenced) and a no-amendment up or down vote (to prevent amendments that would require negotiations to be reopened)
What I don’t like, again, is the simple majority vote rule. Especially for something far reaching and institutionally invasive. Like changing the power dynamic between the President and Congress on immigration issues. 67 votes should be needed for an international treaty (er, agreement) that does that.
There is indeed a very good reason to bring up the content of the legislation and the process.
I would like it to be just like other legislation in that there is an opportunity to amend. If that were the case, it is likely that the deal would be crafted in a way that could avoid them. If not, then it would be amended and the other signatories to the treaty... i mean agreement LOL... would have to agree.
“This bill is
intent on nationalizing energy and banning
firearm ownership through treaties. What
other reason would there be in keeping it
secret.”
There are multiple other reasons to keep it secret but I’d definitely agree those are on the list.
I’m with you in sentiment...it’s just that we don’t even have “blind justice” anymore!
“But under the law there’s an assumption (”Regularity”) that the President and other leaders of the government are acting legitimately within the scope and responsibilites of their offices.”
I doubt there is a single informed person in the United States who would agree the President and Congress are acting legitimately.
They are using our laws against us. With the end state of destroying our freedoms and making us slaves of a world government.
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.