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.
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.