Posted on 06/14/2015 9:36:25 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
INTERVIEWER ASKS CRUZ IS JEFF SESSIONS RIGHT
This has been before SCOTUS and has been long upheld and used since Washington. Thus this is NOT a giving of power to the President but a way to keep him in check. It does not allow anything to be done in US law about immigration. The TPA REQUIRES that once an agreement is negotiated (the TPP) It MUST be put out to the public and the peoples representatives for at least 60 days to even be legal. Once all the representatives and people who want to read it all, it can be voted on. Up or down.. No amendments for the reasons I stated above. It is nothing new.
TAA (Trade adjustment assistance) failed. It was and attempt to get unions of US companies worldwide a little control of monies to bail out their members when the unions failed to compete with others and loss market share. It failed badly and Obama and many democrats were stopped in their bid for control in a way that could affect US law adversely to the rest of the population.
The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), trade agreement, which they have been working on since 2009. has NOT even been agreed to yet. When it is it MUST by TPA control over the President be shown to the public, at least 60 days. Then after all have read it and are satisfied that all the rules laid down by TPA were followed, they can vote for or against it, with just a majority vote in both houses. Nothing in it can change or over come US law as Ted Cruz has fought and won.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
|
I do not understand any of this subject, but IF the quoted statement is true, and I'm not saying it's not, then WHY did the dems kill it, and the GOP support it?????
The author will have to work much harder to prove that to me.
https://www.tedcruz.org/a-note-to-conservatives-on-trade-agreements/
Cruz ... Sessions ... trade ... ping
TPA is an unconstitutional end run around the treaty clause which requires a 2/3 Senate approval in order to become binding on the United States.
TAA is a social welfare program for American Citizens who will lose their jobs because of TPP
TPP is a Treaty.
This is a horribly written article. What is by the author and what is by Ted Cruz? Cruz needs to be very clear on where he stands. For myself, he has lost a lot of credibility recently and, by comments on FreeRepublic and elsewhere, he risks seeing the early end of his 15 minutes. Even though I’ve given hundreds of dollars to his campaign, I see it wasted at this point.
There’s so much confusion about these bills it’s hard to tell what’s what anymore.
1. Fast track allows the finished bill to pass with 50 votes instead of 60, and no amendments.
2. Has a fast-track trade bill ever been voted down by Congress?
The rest is spin.
Cruz has read the TPP. So is he for it or against it?
If he is against it, why did he vote to fast track it?
Is he in a hurry to vote it down?
If Pelosi is happy about it; you know something is wrong.
1. Procedural. a) Fast-track reduces the supermajority of two thirds of the Senate for the approval of a treaty to 50% plus one in the house and 50% plus one in the Senate for a so-called congressional-executive agreement; b) This objection says that it is improper to evade a constitutional mandate of two thirds Senate approval simply by changing the label from a "treaty" to a "deal"; c) the time for the "world's greatest deliberative body" to deliberate about the bill is limited from unlimited to 60 days; d) the negotiations are conducted in secret except that those who are cronies of the administration have access but congressmen and senators have only limited access and are sworn to secrecy; e) rulemaking and lawmaking authority will occur outside of the Constitution reaches of the United States.
2. Substantive: a) trade deals have cause more harm to America than good. They have hollowed out the manufacturing sector, cost Americans millions of manufacturing and nonmanufacturing jobs, they promote off-shoring of American jobs, b) and they are unfair because of the relative disparities among nations in wages, environmental regulations, taxing levels and currencies. c) To the degree that they produce wealth and jobs in America by promoting exports, that wealth and those jobs are limited to favored cronies of Washington and does not trickle down to the middle-class. d) it is feared that the trade deals are loaded with environmental regulations which will not have been approved post-facto by the American Congress but which will be promulgated in the future by international bodies and which will be required to be adhered to by Americans without resort to American courts and due process or to their own elected representatives for redress of grievances.
3. Sovereignty: a) the international tribunals to be established by the Pacific Rim agreement will have the power to affect the rights of corporations and individuals in America and will deprive these entities of their constitutional right to due process in an American court; b) Lawmaking power will be moved offshore; c) American courts will be superseded by offshore tribunals; d) the entire system of American liberty based on separation of powers and checks and balances will be set to naught leading to tyranny; e) treaties and laws made pursuant to them are (congressional-executive agreements?) the supreme law of land and handy tools for a tyrant to circumvent separation of powers, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, the federal system; f) contrary to the statements of Ted Cruz and contrary to the author's analysis of Medellin vs. Texas, it is not at all clear that treaties, congressional-executive agreements or even naked executive agreements are subject to voiding as repugnant to American law or Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas) see also: (1983 Hofstra Law Review article by Hyman especially the following footnote enumerating cases in which Executive agreements have been upheld:
4. E.g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) (agreement by President Carter providing for settlement of claims of American nationals against Iran held valid); United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942) (Litvinov agreement, assigning to United States all claims of Soviet Russia against American nationals, superceded conflicting state laws); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937) (Litvinov agreement upheld); J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928) (agreement authorized by tariff legislation upheld); B. Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583 (1912) (agreement made pursuant to Tariff Act of 1897 held a "treaty" for purpose of direct appeal under § 5 of Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891); Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. United States, 169 F. Supp. 268 (Cust. Ct. 1958), aftd, 275 F.2d 472 (C.C.P.A. 1959) (agreement authorized by tariff legislation held valid); Guerra v. Guajardo, 466 F. Supp. 1046 (S.D. Tex. 1978) (agreement providing for mutual assistance between customs services of the United States and the United Mexican States upheld); Dole v. Carter, 444 F. Supp. 1065 (D. Kan. 1977) (agreement between United States and Hungary returning Hungarian coronation regalia upheld); Louis Wolf & Co. v. United States, 107 F.2d 819 (C.C.P.A. 1939) (United States-Cuban trade agreement held a "commercial convention" for purpose of treaties with Norway and Austria).
4. Political: a) the negotiations are being conducted in secret by a radical Marxist determined to "transform" America who has a record of deceit and a record of bypassing the Constitution, the Congress, and the will of the people; b) his association with Obamacare and the Environmental Protection Agency to name just two demonstrates a penchant for omnibus legislation which invests the bureaucracy with legislative, interpretive, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory powers and that suggests he will resort to these devices on an international level; c) Obama has demonstrated a willingness to engage in crony capitalism to serve his political financial needs and to advance his radical agendas such as environmentalism; d) Obama is conducting negotiations in secret except that his cronies are evidently fully informed and history suggests they, in turn, have his ear; e) resorting to his phone and his pen, Obama has demonstrated a penchant for usurping powers of co-equal branches and suggests he will do so in arbitrary enforcement of trade provisions; f) Obama has corrupted the Department of Justice and is likely to do so respecting enforcement of trade provisions; g) Republicans for their part have shown no disposition to intervene against Obama on behalf of the middle class on issues like Obamacare, spending, taxes, immigration etc. rather they have by deed betrayed their word and enabled Obama's schemes and debate K St. and Wall Street hence they are unreliable firewalls; h) no fast-track treaty scheme has ever failed to pass Congress rendering the safeguard of congressional scrutiny of Obama's deal illusory.
Thanks for your #15. Good post.
Why would Obama lobby for a bill that gives him no power, but would "keep him in check"?
After giving this some thought, I find it somewhat surprising that Ted Cruz has taken up the same agenda as Obama.
As we already know the general direction is a slope toward totalitarianism, how is it not foolish to champion an unknown or unquantified agenda of a Marxist, a narcissist, and a pervasive liar?
As I posted once before, there are several questions which it seems a true conservative would need answered, such as -
How can a true conservative champion a non-enumerated bureaucracy, let alone an international bureaucracy, which allows us 1 vote at a larger table, and which by nature is designed to impact our trade and economy?
Who pays for this new bureaucracy, the offices, travel, staff, police, enforcement of regulations...? Who are the governing recipients?
If economy and trade directly impact our own annual congressional budgets in the U.S., how can this not impact or interfere with future budget processes in Congress?
Regarding what is supposed to be our Constitutional Republic and representative form of government, why is the executive branch, which has routinely disclosed TS military operational details, hell bent on secrecy of this economic legislation?
Is Congress authorizing the president to tweak this legislation after it has been passed?
Can anyone actually prove we are not giving or transferring additional executive authority to this president, which was not enumerated in the Constitution? And NOT the living breathing version wrongly championed by the progressives or socialists.
Can we actually trust the executive branch and corporations who have crafted most of this legislation, already yoked by corporatism, who have demonstrated little to no loyalty to the U.S., or moral boundaries, to not give away more U.S. Sovereignty?
Are the new centralized international bureaucracies now being authorized in these bills, also being authorized to bypass the legislative branch in perpetuity on any economic & trade issues and policies, as most agencies our legislative and executive branches have created in the past have done?
Are we intentionally, or by collateral damage, helping to create and authorize an international authority which can either now or in the future, tax the U.S. without congressional approval?
Will the passage of this legislation help to create the bureaucracy necessary to implement UN climate regulations and taxes.?
Once created, will the U.S. Congress even be able to override divergent and harmful regulations? Will any attempt require 2/3rds of the Senate?
Does anyone actually know what is in the final version of this bill?
If not, how can a true conservative defend any congressmen or senator who does not know the breadth of what is in the final version they are voting for?
And you could ask why the democrats killed it too but I doubt you will.
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.