Ted Cruz: No, TPP is NOT a ‘living agreement’

Congressional-executive agreements i.e. laws between the United States and foreign countries have been routinely upheld by the Supreme Court. These have been upheld but nevertheless are substitutes for treaties requiring two thirds approval by the Senate. My view and the view of Lawrence Tribe (proving that law as well as politics makes for strange bedfellows) is that this is an unconstitutional act. My view and Lawrence Tribe's view is distinctly minority

I agree with that, and said as much in one of my replies to you. The reason your statements about all of that is non-responsive is because it is not the subject of the statements Cruz made in his explanation. I am not sure whether you are not understanding that, or if you actually have a hatred toward Cruz that is coloring your thought process here, or if you are intentionally changing the subject to dodge admitting that you are wrong.

The reason you are wrong in your assertions about the bills under discussion, when you claim they change the Constitution, is that they are not about treaties, and Ted Cruz was referring to treaties.

Again, non-responsive. You quoted something I did not say. Apparently, you are incapable of admitted error of any kind. Sheesh.

This discussion is over.

You quoted something I did not say.

No doubt you remain oblivious and are quite unaware that you have demonstrated perfectly my assertion in #98:

It is quite obvious that you either do not comprehend or simply do not read that which is addressed to you.

I wearily acknowledge your assertion that this discussion is over

Again, non-responsive. You quoted something I did not say. Apparently, you are incapable of admitted error of any kind. Sheesh.

This discussion is over.

And you lost.

nathan's arguments have been perfectly responsive, "on point" (I'm assuming you know what that means), and most importantly, correct. Your problem is simply that you don't like the conclusions, and you've argued (actually, blustered and ad hominemed) yourself into such a box that your only remaining option is to petulantly "pick up your marbles", proclaim "victory" and leave.

nathan, once again Freepers owe you thanks for your outstanding efforts in analyzing and explaining the various issues confronting us. Moreover, you do this while refusing to succumb to the temptation to descend into the ad hominem and dishonest, semantic sophistry and misdirection tactics of your opponents.

As you, and others, have noted in these threads, these opponents of the rule of law (and by that I mean the original intent of the Framers, not the "let's call a treaty a trade agreement so we can circumvent that intent") and the intent of the Founding Fathers that our government should actually represent the People, have won this battle. Unfortunately, they will re-discover all too soon that it was a Pyrrhic victory, but by then it will be too late.

You drew that conclusion without reading what I wrote.

I agree, and have written in this thread and elsewhere on FR, that the administration and the Congress have wrongly agreed that this monstrosity is an agreement, not what is obviously is, a treaty.

I have an issue with at least some of those in your camp who claim that the Constitution has been changed because of that. No, it has not. And this is not the first treaty that an administration and a Congress have agreed to call an agreement.

Also, this is not the first time Congress has agreed to fast track treaties that they call agreements.

Then some of those in your camp join Dimocrats and “progressives” in trying to claim Ted Cruz is trying to change the Constitution by his vote in favor of the fast track legislation. Then, when questioned about that, they claim they are being subjected to ad hominem attacks. Nonsense.

So I challenge you: Point me to a post I wrote with such an attack, and quote it. Or admit that you wrongly accused me of ad hominem attacks.

savedbygrace, I apologize for this delayed reply; I went out of town to the neighboring "big city" Saturday on some personal business, then stayed for dinner with friends, arriving home late. Today has been church and Fathers Day stuff, so I'm just now getting back to Free Republic. The thread is cold and everyone has moved on, but you deserve the courtesy of a reply. I've pinged nathanbedford because he was the recipient of one of your ad hominem comments.

re: You drew that conclusion without reading what I wrote.

Not true, I have read everything you wrote in this thread. You really should learn the concept that people might simply disagree with what you've said. You have absolutely no basis for accusing me of such. Further, this is an example of the ad hominem logical fallacy. Ad hominem literally means "to the man", i.e. directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. You're arguing against me, not dealing with what I said.

Regarding - I agree, and have written in this thread and elsewhere on FR, that the administration and the Congress have wrongly agreed that this monstrosity is an agreement, not what is obviously is, a treaty.

And - I have an issue with at least some of those in your camp who claim that the Constitution has been changed because of that. No, it has not. And this is not the first treaty that an administration and a Congress have agreed to call an agreement. Also, this is not the first time Congress has agreed to fast track treaties that they call agreements.

It is simply amazing, and somewhat sad, that you don't seem to realize you've contradicted yourself in this thread. You acknowledge these trade agreements are really treaties, yet you've criticized others for pointing out that Ted Cruz is hiding behind the legalistic technicalities of this stratagem/tactic Congress and the courts created one hundred years ago as a means of circumventing the higher approval threshold for treaties in order to justify his vote for what you just acknowledged is a treaty.

Your problem in this thread, and indeed that of the other Cruz apologists, is your dogged defense of Cruz's support of this whole dishonest, deceptive and cynically contrived stratagem for bypassing Constitutional limitations they just happen to not like.

Re: - Then some of those in your camp join Dimocrats and “progressives” in trying to claim Ted Cruz is trying to change the Constitution by his vote in favor of the fast track legislation. Then, when questioned about that, they claim they are being subjected to ad hominem attacks. Nonsense.

It is not nonsense - it's fact. They've been called Cruz haters/bashers, trouble makers, etc., anything to avoid actually adressing the objections raised.

Re: - So I challenge you: Point me to a post I wrote with such an attack, and quote it. Or admit that you wrongly accused me of ad hominem attacks.

Post 95 - I will place more stock in the constitutional legal opinion of a man who has argued a number of cases before the USSC, and won most of those, than the opinion of an unknown person posting on the Internet. How many arguments before the USSC have you made?

You managed here to combine two logical fallacies in the same comment. The first sentence is an example of the fallacy of "argument by higher authority". No one questions Cruz's intelligence, even brilliance, nor his legal qualifications and his record of successful litigation before SCOTUS/USSC.

The problem, which you and the others have doggedly refused to acknowledge, is whether he's being honest. As history amply shows, intelligence and professional competence can just as easily be employed to further a lie as the truth. What has dismayed so many formerly ardent Cruz supporters, myself included, is that Cruz has decided to cast his lot with those who wish to use a dishonest, deceptive process to impose an agenda which the American people overwhelmingly reject.

Let me be explicitly clear. I understand perfectly that every constitutional and legal point that Cruz has made is correct, "technically" correct, that is. Unfortunately, in the tradition of the ancient Greek Sophists, Cruz is using these "true facts" to deceive and further the bigger lie. The whole TPP/TPA/TAA definitional circus is merely Congressional kabuki theater and flim-flammery; its purpose is to confuse enough people to allow the elites to ram home their agenda.

Your second sentence, "How many arguments before the USSC have you made?" is an example of an ad hominem fallacy because it impugns the qualifications/fitness of the person, nathanbedford, to even argue the issue, instead of addressing the actual points he made. Another point you need to understand, the term ad hominem is not necessarily required to be expressed in mean, abusive or vulgar language, although some seem to think so. What it actually means, as stated above, is that the person employing it is questioning or impugning the qualifications/fitness/motives of their opponent rather than addressing the points of their argument.

To recapitulate, you demanded So I challenge you: Point me to a post I wrote with such an attack, and quote it. Or admit that you wrongly accused me of ad hominem attacks. I have done so. It would be good if you were to send nathan an apology, but that's up to you. It's time for all of us to move on.

Nope.

You still do not seem to understand. The bill in question does not change the Constitution. I do disagree with calling what should be a treaty an agreement, but this labeling has been upheld. I am arguing that nathan was wrong to claim that Cruz and the agreement are changing the Constitution.

By voting for fast track, Cruz is neither changing the Constitution nor supporting the “agreement”.

And asking how many cases he has argued before USSC is NOT ad hominem. By saying I would put more stock in the person who has argued and won cases before the USSC, I was not using “Appeal to Authority”, which called “argument by higher authority”.

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.

I did not do that, Rather, I put “more stock” in Cruz because of his success. I did not draw any conclusion only from his success. I made contributed far more argument and evidence than that.

Your charge of ad hominem and Appeal to Authority are both false.

And still, nobody has proven, or even offered any evidence, that Cruz and/or the fast track legislation has changed the Constitution. That is the issue at hand. Trying to change the argument to something else comes close to the Straw Man fallacy.

My arguments are correct, and I understand the issue perfectly. Your arguments are not merely wrong, they’re dishonest. You’re embarrassing yourself.

I see. Just claim victory without any evidence or argument. Brilliant. You must be so proud.

You really do deserve this intentional ad hominem: You argue like a Dimocrat.

And you obviously have no shame for your defective and deceptive statements. Shame on you.

Now THAT’S an ad hominem. Much deserved.

Are you nathanbedford? Using a second FR account? LOL.

jk