Ted Cruz 2016 : Demands TPP Public Disclosure -- REFUSES Obama-Boehner-Ryan Secret TPP Treason !

Kuhner Radio Report ^ | 2015-06-13 | Patton@Bastogne

[Patton@Bastogne]

.



CLICK This LINK to HEAR the Entire Kuhner Radio Interview











A Note to Conservatives on Trade Agreements


Senator Cruz entirely understands the widespread suspicion of the President. Nobody has been more vocal in pointing out the President’s lawlessness or more passionate about fighting his usurpation of congressional authority.

Senator Cruz would not and will not give President Obama one more inch of unrestricted power.



There have been a lot of questions and concerns about 2the ongoing Pacific trade negotiations. Many of those concerns, fueled by the media, stem from confusion about Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Let’s unpack the issues one by one.



What are TPA and TPP?


TPA stands for Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track”. TPA is a process by which trade agreements are approved by Congress. Through TPA, Congress sets out up-front objectives for the Executive branch to achieve in free trade negotiations; in exchange for following those objectives, Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade agreements without amendments. For the past 80 years, it has proven virtually impossible to negotiate free-trade agreements without the fast-track process.



TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is a specific trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States and 11 other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China is not a negotiating partner. There is no final language on TPP because negotiations are still ongoing and have been since late 2009. Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP. There will be no vote on TPP until the negotiations are over and the final agreement is sent to Congress.



Some Key Facts:


· Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP.

· Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law and nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.

· TPA gives the Congress more control up-front over free trade agreements.

· TPA mandates transparency by requiring all trade agreements (including TPP) to be made public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on them.



Does TPA give up the Senate’s treaty power?

No. Under the Constitution, there are two ways to make binding law: (1) through a treaty, ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, or (2) through legislation passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress. TPA employs the second constitutional path, as trade bills always have done. It has long been recognized that the Constitution’s Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives’ involvement.



Does the United States give up Sovereignty by entering into TPP?

No. Nothing in the agreement forces Congress to change any law. TPA explicitly provides that nothing in any trade agreement can change U.S. law. Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law, and Congress is the only entity that can change U.S. law. Nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.



Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPP?

Senator Cruz has not taken a position either in favor or against TPP. He will wait until the agreement is finalized and he has a chance to study it carefully to ensure that the agreement will open more markets to American-made products, create jobs, and grow our economy. Senator Cruz has dedicated his professional career to defending U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. He will not support any trade agreement that would diminish or undermine either.



Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPA?

Yes. Senator Cruz voted in favor of TPA earlier this year because it breaks the logjam that is preventing the U.S. from entering into trade deals that are good for American workers, American businesses, and our economy. Ronald Reagan emphatically supported free trade, and Senator Cruz does as well. He ran for Senate promising to support free trade, and he is honoring that commitment to the voters.

Free trade helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers; indeed, one in five American jobs depends on trade, in Texas alone 3 million jobs depend on trade. When we open up foreign markets, we create American jobs.

TPA also strengthens Congress’ hand in trade negotiations, and provides transparency by making the agreement (including TPP) public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on any final agreement. Without TPA, there is no such transparency, and the Congress’ role in trade agreements is weaker.



Is TPA Constitutional?

TPA and similar trade authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional for more than 100 years.



Does TPA give the President more authority?

No. TPA ensures that Congress has the ability to set the objectives up-front for free trade agreements.

Trade Promotion Authority has been used to reduce trade barriers since FDR. When Harry Reid took over the Senate, he killed it. History demonstrates that it is almost impossible to negotiate a free-trade agreement without TPA. Right now without TPA, America is unable to negotiate free-trade agreements, putting the United States at a disadvantage to China, which is taking the lead world-wide. It is not in America’s interests to have China writing the rules of international trade.

Moreover, Obama is going to be president for just 18 more months. TPA is six-year legislation. If we want the next president (hopefully a Republican) to be able to negotiate free-trade agreements to restart our economy and create jobs here at home then we must reinstate TPA. With a Republican president in office, Senate Democrats would almost certainly vote party-line to block TPA, so now is the only realistic chance.



How can Senator Cruz trust Obama?

He doesn’t. Not at all. No part of Senator Cruz’s support for TPA was based on trusting Obama. However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress. If the Obama Administration tries to do something terrible in a trade agreement, Congress can vote it down. And most congressional Democrats will always vote no—because union bosses oppose free trade, so do most Democrats—which means a handful of conservative congressional Republicans have the votes to kill any bad deal. That’s a serious check on presidential power.



Isn’t TPP a “living agreement”?

That particular phrase—a foolish and misleading way to put it—is found in the “summary” portion of one particular section of the draft agreement. That section allows member nations to amend the agreement in the future, expressly subject to the approval of their governments. Thus, if some amendment were proposed in the future, Congress would have to approve it before it went into effect.



But isn’t TPA a secret agreement?

No, it is not. The full text of TPA (fast track) is public. What the Senate just voted for was TPA, not TPP.

Right now, the text of TPP is classified. That is a mistake. Senator Cruz has vigorously called on the Obama administration to make the full text of TPP open to the public immediately. The text being hidden naturally only fuels concerns about what might be in it. Senator Cruz has read the current draft of TPP, and it should be made public now.



Critically, under TPA, TPP cannot be voted on until after the text has been public for 60 days. Therefore, everyone will be able to read it long before it comes up for a vote.



Couldn’t Obama use a trade agreement to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants?

No. There is one section of TPP that concerns immigration, but it affects only foreign nations—the United States has explicitly declined to sign on to that section.

Moreover, Senator Cruz introduced a TPA amendment to expressly prohibit any trade deal from attempting to alter our immigration laws. [LINK to release.]

Two Republican Senators (Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul) blocked the Senate’s consideration of that amendment, but the House of Representatives has agreed to include that language in the final text of the trade legislation. Thus, assuming the House honors that public commitment, federal law will explicitly prohibit any trade deal from impacting immigration.

And, regardless, no trade agreement can change U.S. law; only Congress can change U.S. law.









.

[philman_36]

You are simply lying about my “assertion”.

How am I lying? These are your own words!
Treaties do not require 2/3 anymore. The senate voted that power away this spring.

I would simply like you to substantiate your assertion and you haven't done so as of yet.

Why?
"Why" what?

[jjotto]

That was demshateGod.

philman, you are a hothead idiot

[philman_36]

That was demshateGod.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zANvYB93u2g

If Congress agrees it is an agreement, then treaty requirement of 2/3 Senate vote doesn’t apply.

Oh, yeah, you were the pretentious ass trying to tell me something I already knew...

If Congress agrees it is an agreement, then treaty requirement of 2/3 Senate vote doesn’t apply.
Your post, however, does NOT prove demshateGod's assertion either.

philman, you are a hothead idiot

Did I already mention pretentious ass?

[T Ruth]

Does TPA give the President more authority?

More than what? To say that TPA does not give Obama more authority is misleading at best.

The key question is whether passing TPA gives Obama more authority than not passing TPA. The answer to that question is that passing TPA give Obama more authority than not passing TPA.

Whether TPA gives Obama more authority than past Presidents have had in similar negotiations is irrelevant.

Obama should not be given any additional power, authority, or discretion -- not even a smidgeon.

Obama thinks that passing TPA will give him more power, authority, and discretion. This is shown by his heavy lobbying for passage of the bill.

For Cruz to say that TPA does not give Obama more authority is misleading.

Passing TPA would give Obama more power than he would have if the bill does not pass. Therefore, the bill should be opposed and defeated.

[Guenevere]

No!.......

.....and there are a select few Freepers that I have confidence in and carefully consider their opinions.

These select few are on the very same page right now.....so of course I am paying attention.

Also, I have found Senator Sessions consistent, through the years, inhis passion for our sovereignty as a nation and the Constitution.

Yes, I was impressed with Cruz wealth of knowledge, amazing mind and oration skills

But he has not been around as long as Jeff Sessions......and when he tried to discredit Senator Sessions it opened my eyes,

[Cheerio]

· Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law and nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.

Whoa - someone needs to tell that clown DICK TATOR in the White Hut. AND Someone needs to tell Congress what their Constitutional duties are for removing a treasonous sitting pResident.

[Katarina]

Well said and I agree with you. Session has always spoken the truth and he wants what is best for Americans and America.

[cva66snipe]

Why the big hurry? Why the "ALLOWED" secrecy? Remember the Bush years deals and laws which Obama now enjoys? Remember Conservatives on this forum yelling Stop and Think first? Remember the "You either with us or the terrorist crap each and every single time a Bush idea was scrutinized or questioned?

This deal needs to be shelved for a couple of years and then a slow, cautious, and all read and debated out in the open bill put forth. We have much bigger issues to address right now including a Tyrant destroying this nation. Another Obama Diversion anyone?

If Ted Cruz or anybody running can't understand and take a stand for openness in our trade and treaties then they do not belong in the office of POTUS no matter their voting record and BTW some are saying Sessions has low Conservative Voting scores. No his lifetime score is just fine. I like Cruz but on this issue I trust the experience and judgement of Sessions a lot more. I think Sessions very well realizes what will happen and Cruz is too eager on this to appease K-Street.

Everyone likes to say Reagan was Free Trade. Reagan said plainly "Trade Partners, Not Trade Patsies". Every RINO who is a RINO in both houses is pushing this and that sets off the BOHICA Alarms for me.

[P-Marlowe]

The Constitution requires 2/3 approval from the Senate to approve a treaty negotiated by the president.

TPA is unconstitutional.

Ted Cruz voted for it.

[P-Marlowe]

The US is party to at least 5,000 ‘agreements between nations’ that are not treaties.

Sorry FRiend, but they are all treaties.

trea·ty
A formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.

[cva66snipe]

The two thirds vote requirement for treaties should be left alone. Calling treaties Laws to get around it is a very bad idea no matter the intentions. It helps slow down damage by tyrants and tyrants majority party running rough shod. People need to remember. Almost every abuse of power Obama is using today through Federal Agencies were powers expanded under George Walker Bush’s tenure and the two house GOP Majority. I remember well the cheering on of in in FR.

[P-Marlowe]

How can Senator Cruz trust Obama?
He doesn’t. Not at all. No part of Senator Cruz’s support for TPA was based on trusting Obama. However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress.

Whatever happened to the Constitutional requirement of a 2/3 approval by the Senate of all these "trade deals" that are actually treaties?

trea·ty
A formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries

Oh that's right. Just call a "treaty" by another name and it becomes a banana.

[jjotto]

Well, then they require 2/3 approval in the Senate.

Of interest:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html

... The Constitutionality of Trade Agreements

In Field v. Clark, this type of legislation was sustained against the objection that it attempted an unconstitutional delegation ‘’of both legislative and treaty-making powers.’’

The Court met the first objection with an extensive review of similar legislation from the inauguration of government under the Constitution.

The second objection it met with a curt rejection: ‘’What has been said is equally applicable to the objection that the third section of the act invests the President with treaty-making power. The Court is of opinion that the third section of the act of October 1, 1890, is not liable to the objection that it transfers legislative and treaty-making power to the President.’’

Although two Justices disagreed, the question has never been revived...

[Hardens Hollow]

Here is my take on the 2 issues I had trouble with Cruz on - H1B visas and this trade deal. They have something in common:

Cruz wants to get this country back on its feet economically. He talks over and over about creating jobs and bringing back industries, if you were to listen to HIM instead of the knee-jerk posters here.

Our students are not capable of becoming engineers and scientists. Statistics on graduation rates from universities prove this, as do the international math and science tests. IF we want to being back high tech industries NOW (within the 4-8 year time frame one president gets) we cannot wait for an overhaul of our education system. That will take 12 years - IF it is begun immediately, which isn’t likely with liberals having a stranglehold on our schools.

Cruz is anything but stupid. Cruz has held to conservative principles and to what he thinks would best serve this country in the face of threats from the GOP establishment. He is now campaigning for president and is even more in the limelight. Why would he sabotage his campaign? If you actually listen to his words, he is not talking down to us, he is not covering anything up - he is upfront and explains his position. He’s not belittling anyone, like the democrats do when disagreed with nor is he backing down because a handful of knee-jerk freepers are posting the SAME words on every thread, multiple times.

Why would Cruz go out of his way to agree with Obama, knowing his base would be infuriated, if he didn’t think it was in line with his vision for the country? Do you really think that a man capable of arguing and winning 13 (or was it 16) times in front of the Supreme Court would have a meltdown over a trade deal, and try to sabotage his campaign? I think he’s rather lose doing what he thinks is right than win by pandering.

So he fully believes this is best for his vision of the country, one that brings jobs back and revives the economy. That is a central theme in all his interviews. The interviews Freepers aren’t bothering to read before posting inflammatory remarks.

Obviously standing by what he believes is right, explaining it in a rational way, and drawing people into his vision of an economically viable country is more important to Cruz that to say what you want to hear to pander for your vote.

It worked for Reagan. But the liberals have had 35 years since then to dumb-down the schools, so maybe it is too late for this country.

[apoliticalone]

My basic concern is that very few of the political elites on either side of the coin, get up in the morning and say to themselves “what can I do to make the USA a more secure, a more free, a stronger nation, with increased economic opportunity for its citizens, and a nation with a rising median income.

Or do they wake up fearful that their corrupt 2 Party duopoly will fold and that the lobbyists and big donors owners will get frustrated and remove their watering trough? I do not believe for a moment that they serve us as their propaganda promotes.

[Theo]

Then Jeb’s your man. Or Mitt. Or McCain.

[Cheerio]

Our students are not capable of becoming engineers and scientists. Statistics on graduation rates from universities prove this, as do the international math and science tests. IF we want to being back high tech industries NOW (within the 4-8 year time frame one president gets) we cannot wait for an overhaul of our education system. That will take 12 years - IF it is begun immediately, which isn’t likely with liberals having a stranglehold on our schools.

I agree pretty much with what you said. BUT I have a lot of faith in the young people of today. BUT they have been brainwashed the old communist way in the publik school system that the unions control lock stock and barrel. Toss into that mix the fact that the politicians are taking their money and marching orders from the Crony Chamber of Corruption who want nothing more than to bring in millions of high skilled folk who will work for 1/2 to 1/3 the going wage here in America. If you were a CEO and this is offered to you and your number one priority is the stockholders bottom line, what would you do???

Bottom line - THE COMMIES HAVE WON!!!

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

On June 17, 1963 the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that any Bible reciting or prayer, in public schools, was deemed unconstitutional.

If one is not familiar with all 45 commie stated goals that were read into the US Congressional record you should visit the above link, or here
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963

[P-Marlowe]

Although two Justices disagreed, the question has never been revived...

Because the Senate is the only body with standing to challenge a "trade agreement" as being in violation of the Treaty clause. And the Senate no longer wants this power.

Ted Cruz, as a member of the Senate, could mount a campaign to restore the Treaty authorization clause of the constitution, but instead he signed on the TPA, which removes even the power of the cloture to stop a bad treaty "trade agreement."

[P-Marlowe]

Our students are not capable of becoming engineers and scientists.

Bull$#!+.

[apoliticalone]

I Agree 150%.

Americans if given a opportunity and a non rigged situation are highly competent and diligent. Institutions like Harvard actually discriminate against average Americans.

The media has been a major participant in the dumbing down of our our culture and country. Academia and their institutions have a mission that is primarily fattening up their own crony pocketbooks instead of effectively educating Americans while reducing costs.