Posted on 06/17/2015 10:16:15 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
The left and even some Republicans have argued that the procedures for agreeing to the Trans Pacific Partnership are undemocratic. A leading argument is that voting for “fast track” for the TPP violates democratic principles because Congress is changing its rules now in order to later ratify an agreement it has not yet seen.
The arguments are wholly misplaced. “Fast track” 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.
It is true that fast track eliminates certain procedural obstacles like the filibuster rule in the Senate and the requirements of committee approval. But there is nothing sacrosanct about a set of procedural rules to democracy. The Senate eliminates its filibuster rules for budgetary reconciliation and the House and Senate often pass legislation that has not been considered in committee. Moreover, parliamentary democracies are democratic and the process of ratification for the TPP actually gives more blocking power than is typical in those forms of government, because Congress imposes some requirements that the TPP must meet to get the advantage of fast track.
The comparison to parliamentary government is particularly relevant, because the TPP is an international agreement. Other nations are unlikely to negotiate seriously if they know that any agreement they make can be amended in Congress to the unilateral advantage of the United States. Given the geopolitical reasons for the TPP, making this procedural precommitment is in the national interest.
The complaints of the left are hypocritical on this matter given their enthusiasm for the administrative state. Remember that there Congress also delegates broad power to the executive—often under even more elastic standards than the TPP fast track– to implement regulations that Congress has not yet seen. And unlike TPP fast track legislation, these delegations do not guarantee Congress an up or down vote to approve these regulations to make them the law of the land. If the left was truly unhappy about the lack of democracy in the TTP fast track, it would support the REINS act which requires Congress’s approval of major regulations that administrative agencies promulgate. The left’s opposition to such legislation shows that their real complaint is not about the loss of democracy, but about deregulation. On the whole, TPP is about removing barriers to free exchange and the administrative state is about raising them.
Son of NAFTA.
LOL—Wave ‘hi’ to Jeb Bush, the new nominee!
It's considered bad form to talk behind someone's back, newb. Do you complain about your financial documents before the bank submits them to you?
I se two MAJOR problems with legislation of this type:
First, Do we trust anything that the regime produces? After DeathCare, Benghazi, SWMNBN’s e-mails, how can a prudent man trust? Also, remember that Jimmy Carter changed the Panama Canal Treaty AFTER the Senate had approved an earlier version.
Second; how can this Congress compel a future Congress to do anything? It is contrary to the principle of representative government.
Never give Obama power-period.
He trusts Obama.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
Constitutional Republic!
No amendments are allowed in those 60 days. That's the way it works. How does that work for you, rudeboy?
Perfectly. Otherwise, every Bernie Sanders-like nitwit would throw sand into the cogs.
That's what is supposed to happen! Nitwits throw the sand and others sweep it away.
Senate - a deliberative body.
Not so much in your opinion, eh?
Nope. Imagine them negotiating a START Treaty, eh?
The Senate did negotiate a START Treaty. Several times, in fact.
Are you saying you don't like that treaty?
Release: Senate Ratifies Arms Control Treaty With Russia December 22, 2010
Sen. Sanders voted for ratification. "This treaty will reduce the stockpiles of the world's biggest nuclear powers, improve our ability to monitor Russia's nuclear arsenal, demonstrate our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, preserve our ability to defend ourselves and take an important step forward in improving our relations with Russia," he said "I'm glad that it passed."
“The New START Treaty responsibly reduces the number of nuclear weapons and launchers that the United States and Russia deploy, while fully maintaining America’s nuclear deterrent.” – President Barack Obama
Repeatedly posting an article filled with falsehoods and half-truths doesn’t help your case at all.
There is absolutely no reason to speed up the process when so many terrible things being shown to be invluded in TPP. Why use TPA to hurry the process of subjugating us to foreign influence and taxes increases on small businesses?
For that matter, why partner with Obama and give him anything at all?
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.