Posted on 12/05/2015 7:26:52 AM PST by AU72
Little appreciated in the current debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the dramatic way the TPP will abrogate legislative authority permanently from the U.S. Congress to the president. TPP creates a commission with full power to amend the agreement, and an arbitration mechanism with the strength to enforce such amendments. The House and Senate gave up their rights to amend TPP, but they can still vote it down when it comes up for up-or-down votes in both chambers next year. production. (p. 3) They are also upset that the carbon emission reductions being negotiated in Paris are voluntary, not mandatory. However, they have missed the fact that there will be at least one exception to the "voluntary" rule. The Paris agreement won’t be voluntary for the U.S. -- if TPP passes!
It is just now dawning on Republicans leaders in Washington that, if they vote to pass TPP, the carbon emission reductions and reparations that Obama agrees to in Paris wob't be voluntary for the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The EXEMPT GOP and Sen. Cruz are complicit in allowing
this to pass to vote, even though SECRET.
TPP might have been stopped if Sen. Cruz hadn’t been such a strong advocate of it.
TPP is why Cruz will not be the GOP nominee this cycle, his cheer leading for the enabling legislation (TPA) for TPP will be his downfall.
I see a future for Obambi as Supreme Presidente of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Obama plans to Curse the US for the rest of time
Cruz has NEVER advocated for TPP, just the opposite.
It’s not going to pass. Ted Cruz always knew it wouldn’t pass.
Besides:
“Fortunately, even if Congress passes TPP, there would still be an out for the United States. TPP contains one excellent provision. A country can pull out of TPP, simply by giving six months notice.”
Those Trumpkins, haplessly attempting to skewer Cruz on this issue, should move on to another— perhaps the outtakes of his family video.
Whichever one he supported, it was either a very bad miscalculation or else he supports free trade.
Cruz voted against TPA.
Diogenesis - I think your lamp went out some time ago
AMEN
What was the first bill, the one Cruz voted for?
Cruz supported TPA until Rand Paul and another Senator blocked Cruz’s and Session’s amendment that would have protected our immigration laws. That and some backroom deals that McConnell made on the Ex-Im bank, caused him to withdraw his support and vote against TPA.
[[“Fortunately, even if Congress passes TPP, there would still be an out for the United States. TPP contains one excellent provision. A country can pull out of TPP, simply by giving six months notice.â€]]
Who’s going to ‘give 6 months notice’? Congress? The very same congress that gives dear leader everything he’s ever asked for?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3366640/posts?page=22#22
There are six sections in the description. We could add a (future) Step 7 to the list since Ted Cruz has pledged to vote against TPP.
It is true that Cruz voted in support of TPA on a prior occasion but his last vote was negative.
For those who are not yet up to speed, TPA is the bill, now law, which gives the president plenary powers to negotiate a treaty without two thirds consent of the Senate but with consent of both the House and Senate by majority vote only. I believe but I am not sure that, unlike the authorization for Obama to negotiate the atomic bomb treaty with Iran, the treaty is not automatically enacted if Congress fails to repudiate it. Under the Iran treaty Congress must have voted down and, if the president vetoes that negative vote, Congress must override his veto by two thirds. Thus, the treaty making power of the United States Constitution is stood on its head with two thirds of both houses of Congress being required to deny the treaty in the wake of a presidential veto whereas under a normal constitutional process the treaty would fail without two thirds of the Senate present.
It is my belief but I am not sure that TPA as applied to TPP as opposed to the "deal" with Iran does not have these outrageous provisions. I would like to be instructed on this if I have it wrong.
By the way, it is quite common for Congress by a vote of both houses to substitute approval of a treaty (not called such but labeled a "deal") by approval on a majority basis of both houses of Congress instead the two thirds of the Senate required by the Constitution. This is been an acceptable practice virtually since the beginning of the Republic and has been approved by the Supreme Court.
The question for Ted Cruz relates only to his initial vote for TPA and whether as conservatives we think his subsequent vote against TPA settles the issue. He has already stated an intention to oppose TPP. In deciding whether Cruz initial vote has been more than corrected by his subsequent vote in opposition to TPA, I think we should consider that not all trade treaties or agreements are bad. Certainly those negotiated by Obama are bad. Certainly, those treaties negotiated by Rino presidents like George Bush have been problematic. I do not see how Cruz deserves any blame for those misadventures.
It is also true that treaties, whether good or bad, and every one of them is certainly a mixed bag with some domestic producers being advantaged in their exports and others being disadvantaged by foreign competition. Likewise, some jobs are added and some jobs are lost to foreign competition. The consumer generally is advantaged unless he has been put out of a job.
Finally, recent history has shown us that trade representatives need to be able to represent to foreign negotiators that they will be able to get the treaty ratified at home. Many argue that that implies that the president has to have the kind of authority granted to him to negotiate by TPA. This political reality suggests that Cruz' initial support of TPA makes sense in a Milton Friedman view of economics. That classically conservative economic view is that in the long run everyone prospers with international trade. The problem arises when the trade is not fair, when the negotiating partners cheat, or when the politicians like Bush favor one politically connected sector of the economy over others. Even worse, the problems certainly arise when the treaty making power is designed to circumvent the Constitution as it no doubt is being done by Obama today in the treaty under review in this article.
There is some question whether the TPA authority method of ratification rather than by two thirds of the Senate as explicitly required in the Constitution raises the "deal" to the level of a treaty as defined by the Constitution? In other words, the deal might be entirely lawful but it might not be held to be a supreme law of the land above congressional legislation or, for example, due process, equal protection etc..
On balance, I think Ted Cruz has behaved entirely consistently with conservative principles and sound conservative economic doctrine.
Thanks for sharing!
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.