TED CRUZ HQ: A Note to Conservatives on Trade Agreements

Ted Cruz for President ^ | June 12, 2015 | Staff

[Marcella]

“WHY does the bill need to remain secret until it’s passed?”

It is not. It had to be publicly posted for 60 days before it can be voted on. It is not in final form to be posted.

[Marcella]

“As was I ... He needs to explain clearly what he is supporting in this...looks like the same GOPE shell game to me.”

He has explained it in two major speeches and the article on this thread. If you can’t understand it now, you can’t or don’t want to.

[antceecee]

Not clearly or adequately.

[antceecee]

I am open to hearing HIS clearly stated explanation of his support of TPA and his murky comments regarding TAA.

[caww]

Should Cruz speak french or some other language since you’re still not getting it? MAybe just re-reading it til you do might help.

[nathanbedford]

I remain less uninformed but as perplexed as ever on this subject. In addition to the material graciously supplied by Theoria, I took a look at Wikipedia in response to your reply and found the following:

"An executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president's authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, or (3) from a prior act of Congress. For instance, it is as commander-in-chief that the President negotiates and enters into status of forces agreements (SOFAs), which govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces stationed in other nations. An executive agreement, however, cannot go beyond the President's constitutional powers. If an agreement was in the competence of the United States Congress, it would need to become a congressional-executive agreement or a treaty with Senate advice and consent. If an agreement was neither within the competence of Congress nor within the competence of the President (as for example an agreement which would affect powers reserved to the states), it could still be adopted by the President/Senate method but must not conflict with the United States Constitution. The Case Act required the president to notify Congress within 60 days of any executive agreements that are formed; that figure has since been changed to 20 days." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement)

This explains why they call this not an executive agreement but a congressional-executive agreement. It undoubtedly affects matters within the competency of Congress and therefore requires its assent.

A look further into Wikipedia under executive-congressional agreements reveals the following interesting and pertinent passage:

"Further, the Supreme Court has declared itself as having the power to rule a treaty as void by declaring it "unconstitutional", although as of 2011, it has never exercised this power.

The State Department has taken the position that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties represents established law. Generally when the U.S. signs a treaty, it is binding. However, because of the Reid v. Covert decision, the U.S. adds a reservation to the text of every treaty that says, in effect, that the U.S. intends to abide by the treaty, but if the treaty is found to be in violation of the Constitution, then the U.S. legally can't abide by the treaty since the U.S. signature would be ultra vires." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_policy_of_the_United_States#Law)

I agree with Larry Tribe for once, if the Constitution requires a treaty to require 2/3% of the members of the Senate present, it cannot become a "treaty" by changing its label and requiring only 50% plus one consent of the Senate. However, in 1983 Law Review article (for some reason I cannot provide the citation) from Hofstra by Hyman demonstrates that this is a distinctly minority view. The article is very helpful but does not seem to supply information about the nature of the rights affected by an executive-congressional agreements and whether the rights or the agreement will prevail when in conflict.

The import of the article however is clear: the tendency by the courts has been consistently in favor of endorsing the supremacy of these agreements.

It seems that we are evolving in the same direction with international agreements (treaties?) As we have with domestic legislation made so infamous by Obamacare: the Congress passes thousands of pages of omnibus authorization leaving it to the executive branch to interpret, execute and, often, adjudicate. The broader the authorization, the easier for a compliant Supreme Court to recognize the agreement in preference to, for example, the Mercantile rights of an American corporation. Whether this practice will prevail over the Bill of Rights vouchsafed to an individual is a question apparently not yet fully explored in our jurisprudence.

Constitutional scholars may justify the trend but those of us who understand the framers regard for liberty and opposition to tyranny understand the grave dangers inherent in collapsing the Constitution and its safeguards.

[antceecee]

He prevaricated and most important in all of this...he is supporting Obama.

[antceecee]

I would vote on the side of liberty.

[antceecee]

May I also state that I appreciate your thoughtful well informed post. It gives me much food for thought, thank you.

[Gator113]

Give it up and move on...

Cruz doesn’t need the vote of an idiot. Others might try to help you understand, but as for me, I couldn’t care less if you ever get it.

[Gator113]

The hell you will.

[antceecee]

You sir are the idiot, you show that in your posts.
I will express my thoughts as you do yours, despite your negative admonition. So prepare to ignore me as I will you.

[Gator113]

LOL @ you.

You freaks aren’t worth the bother.

[antceecee]

Funny how you are drawn to constantly responding to me. 😎

[2ndDivisionVet]

So I have to search for you? I’m going to want at least $25/hr.

[Theodore R.]

are you willing to throw the bums out and replace them

Some 90 percent of the U.S. House districts are gerrymandered for one party. Change is impossible in such situations. Most voters are so uninformed that they feel they have performed a great service by recognizing even one name on a ballot. Much easier, it is, to recognize a party label. And we know how Republican primary voters rely on their "friendly" incumbents time and time again.

[Caipirabob]

The sense that nothing will change is very sad, and yet after 6 years of the rodeo clown prince, I can hardly blame some our our folks here. I have to keep hoping because if we can’t bring it back from the abyss our children will suffer Imeasurably.

[cripplecreek]

I’m not sure most FReepers really want anything better.

Some just seem addicted to misery.

[Caipirabob]

Some just seem addicted to misery.

There is that... : )

And I honestly believe FR has been more subject to leftist/government troll attacks than ever in our history. Not blatant trolling but a steady whisper campaign. Just observing some of them now and then you can pick out who is who.

[cripplecreek]

Well this whole trade dust up seems to be of benefit to democrats as another great distraction. In fact I’m not sure its failure isn’t exactly what Obama wanted. Now he’s got the opportunity to pass out goodies to the democrats who voted no with conservatives happily blaming republicans like a bunch of morons.