with graduation from the Dolezal school.
This Agreement is SECRET and gives Obama MORE power.
Posted on 06/15/2015 9:44:25 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
At last weekend’s NRA Convention, Ted Cruz, the first declared GOP presidential candidate, was asked about wavering public opinion in regards to gun control, and how fluctuating public opinion shapes his stance on issues.
Guns.com asked Cruz:
In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, a statistic surfaced putting support for background checks at 90%. Did you go against the want of the nation, with your vote against Manchin-Toomey? And also, how does public opinion shape your response to national problems?
Sens. Manchin, a Democrat and Pat Toomey, a Republican, drafted the bill, aiming to expand background checks, following the aftermath of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012.
Ironically, Manchin-Toomey would have made no difference in stopping Sandy Hook, as it would have expanded background checks to private sellers. Adam Lanza stole the gun from his mother, who had purchased it legally.
“When it comes to Constitutional rights, what matters is what the Bill of Rights says,” Cruz answered. “It doesn’t matter what might be popular at the moment,” stated.
Cruz reminded the interviewer of an inconvenient fact the left likes to ignore about the history of tyranny.
“We’ve seen regimes across the face of the earth come and take away people’s guns, strip away their rights to defend themselves and sometimes it’s been very popular. And yet, it is an inevitable prelude to tyranny,” Cruz explained.
Cruz continued, saying that the constitution’s check against tyranny must not subject to the whims of public opinion.
“The Second Amendment is there so you and I could protect our homes, our families, and our children and our lives. And it’s also there as a fundamental check on government tyranny and that ultimately is not subject to public opinion polls, it’s subject to the express protections of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution,” Cruz asserted.
It was a great question by Guns.com, one many politicians would have weaseled out by not clearly answering. Again, Cruz shows his strong adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and his willingness to fight for them, regardless of temporary flairs in public opinion.
Go pound sand, Diogenesis. Anybody that wishes to understand TPA will support it. The TPP has not been voted on and you know full well that TPA, which is what Cruz voted on, Has NEVER been secret. Stop with the lies ands smears.
As a long time FReeper and as an original member of the Tea Party....I can no longer support Cruz.
People, you absolutely must do your research!!!!!!
Cruz is NOT WHAT HE APPEARS TO BE!!!!
“When you find yourself on the side of the majority of Democrats, the Unions, and every other progressive group, you’d better take a step back and figure out where you have been misinformed.”
Very well said and so True!! Wonder when so many on this board started to agree with the Dems?
Totally false. Cato’s Bill Watson and I explained this at length in The Federalist last year, but here’s former Attorney General Ed Meese to reinforce our conclusions:
The TPA legislation… is clearly constitutional because Congress retains its authority to approve or reject all future trade agreements. It might be unconstitutional if Congress tried to delegate its authority to approve the final deal–but that is not at issue. Congress may always kill any future international agreement by withholding its final approval. The only difference under TPA is that Congress consents not to kill the agreement by amendment (i.e., the ‘death by a thousand cuts’). The Constitution grants each house of Congress the authority to establish its own rules of procedure, and it makes perfect sense for Congress to limit itself to straight up-or-down votes on certain resolutions, such as base closures and its own adjournment motions.
Constitutional law professor John O. McGinnis also recently reviewed TPA and concluded that TPA “simply permits Congress under its ordinary procedures to commit to a future majority vote of Congress to vote up or down on an agreement that the President has negotiated. Representative democracy is thus served by the later vote on an agreement whose text is known.” And then there’s the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1890 case of Field v. Clark approving the constitutionality of an analogous law—the McKinley Tariff Act of 1890, which granted the president even more authority than TPA. It was no big deal.
Finally, it’s important to reiterate that, contrary to some claims, FTAs are not treaties (which are typically “self-executing,” require two-thirds approval by the Senate, and have the force of law upon ratification). They are “congressional-executive agreements” that, even after being signed by the president, have absolutely no legal force until they are converted into implementing legislation (which would amend current law), passed by Congress, and signed into law by the president. Such agreements have for decades been used by the United States for many different issues, including trade liberalization, and U.S. courts have repeatedly rejected constitutional challenges thereto.
In short, a constitutional argument against TPA requires you to reject over a century of precedent, the repeated rulings of U.S. courts, and the opinions of even the strictest of constitutional scholars.
Why don't you do the same and take a closer
examination of Toast Cruz, who fortunately exposed
his character flaw BEFORE the election.
The TPP has not come up for vote yet. It probably won’t until late 2016.
What was voted on was TPA. That bill requires that any trade agreement must be made public before it comes up for vote for 60 days. It also assures more Congressional involvement during the negotiations and places greater restrictions on the President and greater accountability.
There has been a concerted effort to distort and confuse TPA by lumping it in with TPP. I studied TPA in depth by going back and comparing the 2002 TPA bill with the 2014 -2015 versions. Without TPA, we don’t get to view trade agreements before they are voted on. TPA is to our advantage for transparency and because it limits what the Presient can do and expands Congresses role.
The version coming out of the House also contains the Cruz/Sessions language on immigration and reaffirms our sovereignty will in no way be compromised.
You should just do us a favor and stay off Cruz posts. I don’t know, maybe go to DU or some left wing site to bash him. You are not going to change minds here. I adore him. He is a real constitutional lawyer, not a pretend one. I trust and believe what he has said about TPA and TPP. I will never ever ever ever trust a word you say. I remember you from 2012.
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
> There has been a concerted effort to distort and confuse TPA by lumping it in with TPP
I meant TPA <banging head on wall for the 3rd time. Yeah I think the Alinskytes are working hard to distort and confuse the issue...
Please see post 28. TPA has been completely misrepresented and misunderstood by many.
You do realize that every person whose picture you posted agrees with your position against TPA and Ted Cruz, right?
:):):)! Many thanks for your post!
Wow! Nothing shines a light on a candidate like their own record! Paul is pathetic!
“You do realize that every person whose picture you posted agrees with your position against TPA and Ted Cruz, right?”
LOL! This is Hilarious!
Any FReeper reading this can decide if they believe YOU
or their own eyes as Obama encourages Cruz's partner-in-this, Ryan,
to SCREW Conservatives and Americans.
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.