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.









.

[Flick Lives]

Bacon Hotline?! I’m calling now!

[demshateGod]

Treaties do not require 2/3 anymore. The senate voted that power away this spring.

[Mouton]

Of course my question was rhetoric.

I note they say this has been in the works since 2009, so I ask who has been in charge since then? Any fool, listening Cruz et al, who believes anything this guy wants to do is in the best interests of this nation, as it now stands while tottering on its foundations, is a bigger fool then can have his motivations to do so based on trade only policies. This agreement, thanks to Wiki btw, goes way beyond lowering tariff barriers and the like, it is a way to make trade our national religion kind of like how Islam is above any government or nation. It must be defeated. Those who support it must be removed, peacefully, but if not and may come to something more chaotic. When NAFTA was in the works, Perot was pillared over his giant sucking sound comment about the sound being the US sucked into Mexico. I guess we have not learned enough of a lesson. Today we want to do the same things on steroids while led by a despot who is a megalomaniac.

[demshateGod]

You realize that’s not Ted Cruz pictured? It looks like Paul Ryan.

[jjotto]

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

[ncalburt]

Tell us more about How Ted ‘Judas’ ‘ Cruz and Wife are reaping big money from his Treason?
I knew about him being Goldman Sachs butt boy and the same can be said about his masters ,the Hedge Fund Billionaire and The Austin TX Semiconductor billionaire donors .

What Are her links to this massive Trojan Horse and his never ending sea of lies that his staff spits out daily to confuse his sad and oddly crazied followers here.

[Leaning Right]

This means Cruz is either a moron (he’s not) or being deceptive (he is).

Bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs.

Hmmm...is this a case of "follow the money"? Perhaps. Cruz's wife is an investment banker for Goldman, Sachs & Co. Nothing wrong with that, of course. But it would be interesting to see if either of these things happen:

1. Goldman's contributions to the Cruz campaign spike.
2. Cruz's wife gets a major promotion/raise.

I suppose those are ugly questions. But they are fair game when someone is running for president. We all know what happens when a candidate is not properly vetted.

[philman_36]

Treaties do not require 2/3 anymore. The senate voted that power away this spring.

You got something to show to prove that assertion? I'm very interested in learning about that.

[jjotto]

None of this is recent:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html#f388

“INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS WITHOUT SENATE APPROVAL”

[Leaning Right]

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

Well, yes. But a line has to be drawn between a low-power agreement (like: I won't tax your wheat if you don't tax my steel) and a high-power agreement like the TPP. I would argue that that line should be drawn as conservatively as possible.

If such an agreement has sweeping powers, or the potential for such powers, it's a treaty.

[TNMOUTH]

That’s it! Cruz has lost my support! He has sold out! He is no longer one of us. He is finished. I used to give him money, but no more. Can I get a refund?! He is losing support. 95% of supporters are leaving him...just look at FB.

He is treasonous. He is evil. He has become a RINO. Did you know his wife worked for Goldmann?

There, posted this for the trolls.

[TNMOUTH]

Interestingly, the critics want it both ways. They want the information released, so he asks for it to be released. They are still unhappy.

They want him to explain his position, he does it on multiple occasions, but they don’t believe him.

He has done what is asked...and it will never be good enough for the critics on this site. Those with an agenda will see to it that he is destroyed.

Never mind that they NEVER give us a good alternative.

[tennmountainman]

I like Ted. But maybe he and others who support this bill could have withheld
their support UNTIL it was made public. Not before.

[jjotto]

It’s a treaty when Congress or the President want it to be. The Constitution is not specific.

You might be interested in a little history of treaties vs. agreements:

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html#f388

[Diogenesis]

Calling concerned FReepers ‘trolls’ is like
Cruz’s attack on Sen. Sessions - after Cruz
supported giving Obama more power.

Unwarranted.
Inaccurate.
And an impotent segue from obvious and proven bad judgement.

[TNMOUTH]

But, he has sold out...didn’t you hear?

Now, maybe those trolls can give us a better alternative...or maybe not since they lack the courage to say who they support while the troll.

[TNMOUTH]

AWWW, are your feelings hurt now?

Tell me if you have any intellectual honesty...WHO do you support or are you just TROLLING? WHO is a better option for Conservatives...or are you just trolling?

Cruz didn’t attack Sessions...he disagreed with him. I know you don’t think there is a difference, but there is. I guess, then, you are attacking me? Get a grip.

[Clyde5445]

Exactly what I thought. This trade deal is a new translation of “Das Kapital”

[Leaning Right]

It’s a treaty when Congress or the President want it to be.

I would hope that the a treaty would be something that Congress and the President and the Supreme Court want it to be. Even though the President has authority over the conduct of foreign affairs, no one branch should have complete say over something this important.

But, yeah, you've got a point. The Constitution is not specific, so one branch can control the issue if the others are disinterested. Oh, and interesting link by the way. Thanks.

[John 3_19-21]

He should have scuttled it,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=KnyPsKw_gak