Posted on 06/13/2015 4:07:12 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
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 the 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.
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.
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.