Posted on 06/13/2015 4:07:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Every other nation who has signed off on this "agreement" refers to the "agreement" as a "treaty."
So the other countries are entering into a "treaty" and the United States is entering into a "trade agreement."
OK, so after the Supreme Court rulings and literally dozens of congressional-executive trade agreements that haven't been overturned, or even challenged, how do we proceed? In the framers vision of our republic who makes the call on constitutionality?
Yes. That’s the way I’m reading it. These trade agreements are skirting the Constitutional provision that the Senate advise and consent on treaties.
“But isn’t TPA a secret agreement?” (From the catechism)
Notice the deceptive tactic: the question is asked about TPA, which is not secret, but the question is NOT asked about TPP and the OTHERS which are TOP SECRET!!!!!
A treaty is a treaty even if we call it a ‘deal’ or ‘agreement’. That fact alone means it should be dealt with constitutionally. That’s true for Iran Nuke Deal, TPP, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.
“But isn’t TPA a secret agreement?” (From the catechism)
A classic talking-point misdirection.
This is the sort of mendacious, insulting crap I’d expect from Hillary Clinton or Valerie Jarrett.
Honesty makes the call semimojo.
We know that an agreement between nations is a ‘treaty’. If legislators use legislative sleight-of-hand to circumvent that, then all we can do is speak the truth clearly. They intentionally bypassed the Constitution to do what they wanted.
Sorry, but that's a non-answer. Who determines what is honest? Did the founders really intend to punt on determining whether a governmental law or action was constitutional?
The only practical way to implement your vision is a national referendum on whether a given action was "honestly" in accord with the constitution.
In the history of the Supreme Court how many decisions have not been unanimous? Do you think that means the dissenting justices were being dishonest, or did they have legitimate differences in how to interpret the constitution?
YOU do. You’re the voter.
It’s like in Christianity where Paul says “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”
Put forward your best, most honest, most knowledgeable self and ask: Does the Constitution truly say that the Senate must advise and consent on treaties?
I know what I’ve decided.
“Since Obama is not capable of producing an approvable bill, why on earth give him what amounts to a vote of confidence? Why risk that we’ll have another set of tricks and bribes a la ObamaCare?”
Because almost the entire Washington machine, including Cruz, has been snookered into buying into a farce that has been growing for sixty odd years. For the sake of prosterity, the powers that be just cannot let the first black President of the United States leave office without a LEGACY. He has turned everything he has touched into chaos and failure in so obvious a fashion that it can’t be covered up or explained away. Now, at the end of his Presidency, he has nothing. Enter the greatest case of affirmative action that has ever been, the current Free Trade Agreement. Just like NAFTA, it will do nothing except put American workers and taxpayers further down the tubes. Hell, we never recovered from it!
Free trade my azz! Same as Japan and China. It’s not them that’s importing boatloads of OUR cheap crap and it never will be. It will be the same with this deal. We will get the short end. You can bet on it. But Obama will get his affirmative action legacy just like his counterparts get their jobs, diplomas and degrees handed to them.
Someone posted that we can’t wait twelve years for our educational system to catch up so that we can progress economically. Okay, you’ll see your American offspring digging ditches while our “free trade partners” pillage what’s left of America. But not to worry. The first black President of the United States will go down in history as the man who saved America from economic disaster.
I’ve seen others who claimed such, I’ve not seen anything he’s said to indicate that.
LOL...I think they've already got the message.
Amen.
We proceed by telling our congresscritters to follow the Constitution and treat these treaties as treaties and put them before the Senate for a 2/3 approval.
In the framers vision of our republic who makes the call on constitutionality?
Ultimately you as a member of that special group of people called WE THE PEOPLE get to determine the constitutionality of laws. The Framers never intended that the Supreme Court would have the final say on these matters but that power was usurped in Marbury v. Madison. What we need to preserve the Constitution is a moral people and honest representatives. Right now we have neither.
Having said that, do you think calling a treaty a Trade Agreement in order to avoid the 2/3 Senate approval process is either moral or honest?
I certainly don't.
See #128
Hey, when Diogenesis says you’re done, you better pack up your bag and go home.
There are actually 5 branches of government mentioned in the Constitution.
We the People
States
Congress
President
Scotus
We the PEOPLE of the united STATES are the premier two, first mentioned branches.
To drive that point home, the Constitution reminds at the end that any power not mentioned belongs to the PEOPLE or to the STATES.
Interestingly, the PEOPLE are always first.
Treaties do not create binding law on American citizens even though Cruz claims that here. Unless an actual constitutional law is passed separately by Congress, We the People are NOT bound by any treaties in these USA. Period. Whether you are Ted Cruz or not. Treaties are not law and do not bind any individual American AT ALL. Why would Cruz say that? I am flabbergasted!
What a way for him to make that [false] claim that we the people are bound by treaties! And in this context where the ability to “fasttrack” secret treaties is the issue!
His “explanations” favor his advocated process. It culminates in elitist people, who cannot even be prosecuted for making use of inside information (our congress critters), transferring even MORE of the lawmaking THEY are supposed to do to essentially more “independent regulatory agencies.” That’s where this is headed. Elitists get even more control.
I am flabbergasted because I was so solidly in Ted Cruz’s camp!
I want SLOW CONSTITUTIONAL government that remains limited!
We are AMERICANS and we do not “do” what the rest of the world does. We do not have titles of nobility and we do not dip our flag and we want limited government!
We do not need trade that can be controlled and manipulated “fast” by unconstitutional irresponsible shadow groups. We want a Free Market!
LIMTED GOVERNMANT is the genius of America, and I am not giving it up for elitist convenience like you and these people seem to be panicking to do.
I’m sure the bill will be debated once it is brought to the floor.
Many people say that no trade bill has ever been defeated once Fast Track is in effect, but we’ve never had a President who engenders such distrust.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the TPP is voted down. It will undergo much more scrutiny than those trade bills before it. Maybe they already intend to vote it down, and their intention all along was just to secure this authority for a Republican President.
Those who are busy posting vitriol in every single thread completely ignore his position detailed here. A large number of them have never supported Cruz.
Cruz is a Senator with 3 million jobs that depend on exports in his home state. He also has a lot of agricultural interests in Texas that depend on exports. It should not be surprising that he supports Free Trade. Why the rush to attach nefarious motives to something as strait forward as acting in the best interests of his constituents.
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.