Posted on 06/14/2015 9:36:25 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
If it binds the United States in a contract with a foreign government, then it is a treaty.
That is how the founders understood the treaty provision. That is not how the Progressives from the late 19th Century to today view it. They have taken a "Living Constitution" approach to treaties by calling them "trade agreements" even though they have all the earmarks of a treaty, and then pretending that they don't need to go through the Constitutional process of getting 2/3 of the Senate to ratify it. Instead they can ram it through with a simple majority of both houses, which was expressly rejected by the founders.
A treaty would only require a Senate vote.
Exactly. And they also require that 2/3 of the Senate approve. That's a little tough in this modern world, so they progressives have decided to call treaties "trade agreements" and pretend that they are simple laws. But bills that originate in the Congress are not subject to the signatures of foreign heads of state, are they? Or do you think that surrendering our sovereignty to foreign governments should be something done by a simple majority in the middle of the night before Congress adjourns long enough for people to cool down?
Trade agreements have been upheld by the Supreme Court several times as Not being treaties.
They have also ruled several times that unborn babies are not human beings. Does that mean they aren't?
I am simply amazed sometimes at the number of Americans who think the Supreme Court is the final say on 'truth'.
Do they forget that the Supreme Court started the Civil War, that the Supreme Court has ordered the deaths of 60 million babies, and that the Supreme Court has fought to erase God from our culture.
They really don't have a good track record at all. I'm more and more inclined to believe they should have one 4 year term to an elective office and that every bill passed by Congress should remove their opportunity to review.
These “conservatives” are grasping at straws when they are forced to ignore the plain language of the Constitution and the writings of those who were there to sign it and then resort to pointing to late 19th Century and 20th Century rulings by the a very progressive Supreme Court to justify their inconsistent arguments.
As I said, the Supreme Court has ruled several times that unborn babies are not human beings.
Are these “conservatives” ready to cede that argument to the 9 robed Oligarchs who determine what is or is not in our constitution?
Or are they willing to take a principled stand in favor of strict construction and original intent?
https://www.facebook.com/JoshuaRojasPage/videos/863752507025901/
No more confusion. Here are the answers to your questions.
Where does Ted Cruz actually stand on trade and why?
0:30 On TPA...
2:58 On TAA...
4:29 On TPP...
7:30 Which one is secret and what does Cruz think about that?
8:37 What does Mike Lee think about TPA?
9:34 What does Heritage say about all these?
10:40 What was in the Trade Act of 2015?
13:50 Did Cruz demand TPP be made public?
14:07 Is TPP a living document that can be changed without Congress?
15:11 Why hasn’t Cruz taken a side on TPP?
15:55 What about the WikiLeaks section of TPP?
17:21 How do we respond to angry and nasty people attacking Cruz on this issue?
19:40 Why can’t we just wait 1 more year to pass TPA when Obama is out?
Again, trade agreements involve revenues and tariffs. That is in the Constitution and requires passage by both the House and the Senate, unlike treaties that require only Senate passage.
Look, I like Ted Cruz but I don’t like H1B’s and giving fast track to Obama. Not one damn bit in fact. I see it as my right calling to convince as many people as possible that both of those are wrong headed ideas and to convince Cruz that he is mistaken here. I know your mileage varies there and I would like to support Cruz because we agree on so much else but it will be very difficult to do since it looks like he’s not gonna change his mind and I’m not gonna cross that line in the sand.
““Liberals are trying to fool conservatives with bogus arguments to advance their union agenda,” Buck said in an emailed statement”
Well, that explains all the confusion about the bills. And why it makes little sense about who is or isn’t backing them.
The Constitution states that the House must be involved when revenues and tariffs are concerned. That is not a difficult concept to grasp.
That is why trade agreements do not fall into the treaty category and those agreements require the approval of both the House and Senate.
What is it about TPA that you don’t like? Is it because it requires a 60 day public review of trade agreements before a vote? Is it because it assures a bigger role by Congress in trade agreement negotiations, while placing restrictions on what the President can do and at the same time making the President more accountable?
I don’t understand the objections to TPA. I see many advantages to we the people.
It’s tied to the TPP, and we can’t read the TPP, and as such the TPA should go down too.
Enough secret sausage-making. Let’s read the bill.
Oh, and why has the debt stopped $25M below the debt limit for 90 days. I’d think that’s a problem worth talking about in Congress.
Oh yes!! Boehner is moving it back up for reconsideration!! Follow the money!!!
The TPA requires the 60 day posting of the TPP. It is the only way we will be able to review the bill before a vote.
Cruz has demanded the TPP be made public, as have others, but the TPA law, if passed Requires that transparency.
Trade agreements are not treaties. Why? Because trade agreements involve Revenues and Tariffs. Any Bill with Revenues and Tariffs requires the approval of the House and the Senate, not just the Senate as treaties do. That is in the Constitution.
My objections to TPA for this or any POTUS are many. Number one is the executive makes the agreement and a simple majority can pass it. The history of these trade agreements is lower GDP, more immigration, lower wages and huge trade deficits. Our negotiators suck and this particular negotiator sucks more.Secondly the agreement is take it or leave it with no amendments allowed. It is no wonder that these trade agreements lower GDP. A bribe here, a promise there and 50 votes are cobbled together to satisfy theunions and the Chamber of Commerce while the middle class working folks take it in the shorts once again. I could go on but what’s the point?
Instead of requiring 2/3 to ratify— or even 51%— The TPA now requires 2/3 vote to over turn omana’s veto of a 51% rejection of this madness. You can’t make that up!!
Because the Dems wanted Fast Track to fail, and with this in it, it would not fail.
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.