Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Race To The Middle For 2008
Eagle Forum ^ | November 29, 2006 | Phyllis Schlafly

Posted on 12/03/2006 7:47:19 AM PST by A. Pole

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

1 posted on 12/03/2006 7:47:21 AM PST by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; Jhoffa_; FITZ; arete; FreedomPoster; Red Jones; Pyro7480; ...
The middle class is not placated by feel-good talk that the stock market has climbed to a record high, or that unemployment is at a record low, or that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is growing. Unemployment statistics don't count the guys who lost $50,000 jobs in manufacturing and are now working $25,000 jobs in retail, and job-growth figures happily do count the wives who have been involuntarily forced into the labor force just to keep groceries on the table.

bump

2 posted on 12/03/2006 7:49:23 AM PST by A. Pole (Mandarin Meng-tzu: "The duty of the ruler is to ensure the prosperous livelihood of his subjects.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Only problem is that is a pure lie. Nothing at all even remotely touching reality. Average wages in this country are UP $3.00 but of course that doesn't validate their emotion based opinions of the Economic Nationalists so they simply tune out all factual reality to cling to their failed dogmas of economic isolationism.
3 posted on 12/03/2006 7:51:41 AM PST by MNJohnnie (I do not forgive Senator John McCain for helping destroy everything we built since 1980.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Well since the middle class voted out their "enemy", and voted in their friends, what is their legislative agenda to bring back all the manufacturing jobs?

I couldn't tell by the article what their plans were.


4 posted on 12/03/2006 7:56:09 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Only problem is that is a pure lie.

And why would Mrs. Schlafly lie?

5 posted on 12/03/2006 7:56:18 AM PST by A. Pole (Mandarin Meng-tzu: "The duty of the ruler is to ensure the prosperous livelihood of his subjects.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
...some disappeared in the tsunami of cheap Chinese goods as Wal-Mart replaced small businesses and left behind towns with empty streets and boarded-up windows.

Around here, whenever a small business closes it is almost immediately replaced by another one, usually some kind of yuppie shop.

6 posted on 12/03/2006 7:56:53 AM PST by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

So free trade is now and I suspect it has been for a while a losing political position. If the republicans want to win they need to dump it asap.


7 posted on 12/03/2006 8:00:28 AM PST by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

"Only problem is that is a pure lie. Nothing at all even remotely touching reality."

Here in CT it is 100% accurate and spot on with the demographic that the writer is talking about.


8 posted on 12/03/2006 8:00:55 AM PST by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Have Republicans realized that jobs were second only to the unpopular war as the issue of 2006 . . .

I challenge Ms. Schlafly to provide evidence to support this point. Everything I've read in the aftermath of the 2006 election indicates that the war in Iraq wasn't even the top issue in the minds of most voters -- and "jobs" (whatever that means) wasn't even among the top five.

9 posted on 12/03/2006 8:01:28 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
that perennial politician, ... Ted Kennedy

I usually refer to him as a "bloated gutwagon." Or "Souse the Orca." Perennial politician just doesn't capture the full effect of the drunken slob.

10 posted on 12/03/2006 8:01:36 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Only problem is that is a pure lie. Nothing at all even remotely touching reality. Average wages in this country are UP $3.00 but of course that doesn't validate their emotion based opinions of the Economic Nationalists so they simply tune out all factual reality to cling to their failed dogmas of economic isolationism.

Up $3? From when? 1971? Prove your ass-ertions.

11 posted on 12/03/2006 8:03:07 AM PST by raybbr (You think it's bad now - wait till the anchor babies start to vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

Oh you don't know ? They're going to raise taxes on people who actually still have jobs , that's how they solve all our problems !!!


12 posted on 12/03/2006 8:06:20 AM PST by Obie Wan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
I usually refer to him as a "bloated gutwagon."

So do you think that he was wrong when he said: "People want to know who's on their side. Whether it's health care or wages or retirement issues, they want to have someone on their side."

Well, I guess you are right, if this was said by a fat Democrat then it must follow that people do not want their interests to be defended. The logic of Free Market Fundamentalism is overwhelming.

13 posted on 12/03/2006 8:09:27 AM PST by A. Pole (Mandarin Meng-tzu: "The duty of the ruler is to ensure the prosperous livelihood of his subjects.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

The first wave of Baby Boomers is facing retirement. They will rapidly form the largest "entitlement class" in the history of the country. Politicians who offer to increase the Boomers' benefits from baloney sandwiches to steak and lobster will get elected. Politicians who call for restraint will lose. This will set the pattern for the next twenty years.

Watch, it's coming to a Nanny State near you.


14 posted on 12/03/2006 8:09:53 AM PST by NaughtiusMaximus (Our troops are smart. It's our politicians who are stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock
Specifically, how do Republicans dump free trade, what do they put in its place, how long will it take, and how soon can factories be built with workers making an excellent living?

Since the middle class enemies were defeated, specifically, what do our friends in Congress have in mind to accomplish these goals, fast?
15 posted on 12/03/2006 8:11:15 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Is the middle where we want to be? Dwight Eisenhower was a strict middle-roader in the years 1953 to early 1961, and we saw the politics of compromise and "containment" take the lead. For all the kindly and avuncular face he put to his Presidency, Eisenhower was adamant is not drawing out worldwide Communism into a face-to-face fight, and we were saddled with that curse upon the world for perhaps 30 years longer than we ought to have endured.

Now a similar situation is developing in the confrontation between our values (which, oddly enough, are now partly comprised of some of the few remaining legacies of world socialism) and those of the Islamic world caliphate. Make no mistake, that is not a religion, it is an IDEOLOGY, transcribed from the words of a murderous schizophrenic madman, that would make Charles Manson look like a jovial and highly respected Boy Scout leader.

And we are supposed to compromise with these people? The Reds were reasonable and interested in self-preservation, and THEY were a bear to deal with. How are we supposed to deal with people who show up at meetings with a bomb belted around their waists, with their thumb poised to detonate the device the moment negotiations are not going their way?


16 posted on 12/03/2006 8:13:09 AM PST by alloysteel (Facts do not cease to exist, just because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: A. Pole
Tie up that horse, Tex. I don't believe ANYTHING Ted Kennedy says, including "Good morning."

But whether Tubby said it or not, I agree that people want to know who's "on their side" (whatever that means). It's just that I don't believe for one split second that that is the Democrats. There's too much evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, canceling our involvment in GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the rest of the AFTA-birth wouldn't bother me in the least.

18 posted on 12/03/2006 8:17:13 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
what do they put in its place,

They reinstate the Constitution, and everything else will follow.
19 posted on 12/03/2006 8:20:12 AM PST by hedgetrimmer (I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Islamisalie
These politicians don't work in a vacuum, their constituents vote the into office.

Politicians are just men, normal human beings, who act legislatively according to the wishes of their voters.

It is your fellow Americans who choose our financial, governmental, and cultural way of life.
20 posted on 12/03/2006 8:22:34 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

The Constitution has free trade rules, laws, specifics?

(sorry, I'm just obviously ignorant on this subject of free trade and the Constitution)


21 posted on 12/03/2006 8:34:33 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
If some other nation is making the goods cheaper, protectionism will just delay the inevitable, while hurting the American economy in the meantime. The Soviet Union trade block was the epitome of protectionism. Over time, it produced goods nobody wanted to buy. We tried to protect steel, which just increased the cost to manufacture goods that used steel, hurting American competitiveness.

I won't vote for a protectionist Republican. Granted, a real regime of hard line protectionism would be so economically damaging (and other nations would retaliate, precipitating trade wars), that it would never be implemented. But that doesn't mean we won't have to endure being subjected to demagogic lip servicing of it.

22 posted on 12/03/2006 8:35:18 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Actually Ted is right :"People want to know who's on their side. Whether it's health care or wages or retirement issues, they want to have someone on their side."

The problem is that they believe the lies the Democrats tell them and actually think the Democrats care about them.
They dont. The Democrats talk a good game then they tax us to death. They talk about health care and then they give us crap.They talk about jobs and then they pass enviro-whack legislation that takes jobs to foreign countries.

They lie.


23 posted on 12/03/2006 8:39:34 AM PST by sgtbono2002 (The fourth estate is a fifth column.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

Constitutional government prohibits international organizations like the WTO from having any effect on Congress, our trade policy or US citizens. "free trade" agreements grant organizations like the WTO, and foreign agents and foreign countries unlawful authority to make rules and influence US trade.


24 posted on 12/03/2006 8:40:32 AM PST by hedgetrimmer (I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Torie

What is protectionism?


25 posted on 12/03/2006 8:41:01 AM PST by hedgetrimmer (I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Imposing tariffs, quotas, work content rules or anything else that restricts the free flow of goods across borders at prices set by a willing seller or buyer. I hope that helps. Obviously there are degrees of protectionism. We have too much of it as it is. By the way, trade treaties are not unconstitutional. They are ratified by Congress. I am tired of seeing the ludicrous assertion made.


26 posted on 12/03/2006 8:43:53 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
International organizations like the WTO really have no influence at all in the U.S. Their rulings are obeyed when we want to obey them, and ignored when we want to ignore them.

See "Canadian softwood lumber dispute" as a perfect example of the latter -- in which various trade bodies (NAFTA panel, WTO, etc.) ruled against the U.S. with boring regularity over a period of five years, yet the U.S. still kept the tariff on Canadian lumber in place until it eventually (earlier this year) prevailed upon the Canadian government to sign a softwood lumber trade agreement that was heavily in our favor.

27 posted on 12/03/2006 8:46:02 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Can money pay for all the days I lived awake but half asleep?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

Replace it with fair trade and trade reciprocity.


28 posted on 12/03/2006 8:46:19 AM PST by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Thanks! Can no one go to court over this violation then?


29 posted on 12/03/2006 8:47:52 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Hydroshock

Sounds good, but who will do this?


30 posted on 12/03/2006 8:50:52 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

I know of one conservative who would. Rep. Duncan Hunter, there is soem talk of him running in 2008.


31 posted on 12/03/2006 8:52:02 AM PST by Hydroshock ( (Proverbs 22:7). The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Sadly, I think the elite Democrats in control, and the middle, more socially-conservative Demos who will lock-step vote with their party, are outright socialists, or like Hilary, are communists who only think that the reason why communism failed in the past is because they weren't in charge of it.

Communists and socialists hate each other (because each think they should be in charge, but, if you recall from Hitler's time, they cooperate to get into power, then one kills (in that case, literally) the other.

I digress.

Anyhoo, almost without exception, all the college-educated kids I run into (i.e., anyone under 35), will outright say they are socialists, and that wealth distribution (the forced, governmental type) is right and good. Am I still in America, here?

If I had a dollar for every college grad who had zilch real life experience, can't write well or think creatively, is a socialist or communist, who has not one entrepreneurial bone in their body, who thinks working for the government or an NGO is the ultimate, and who thinks they should be in charge...I'd be quite well-off financially.

Between the over 60 crowd who watches CBS/NBC/ABC and lives in that lie/bubble and votes how they dictate, to these sadly brainwashing, non-thinking recent college grads, not to mention the old-fashioned left vote fraud, how are family folks like myself to defend the American dream at the voting booth? Is our day over?

I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but election has not been an ear mark of progress, unless you are looking at it as a triumph for "Progress" (code word: communism).

32 posted on 12/03/2006 8:55:52 AM PST by elk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
I agree that people want to know who's "on their side" (whatever that means). It's just that I don't believe for one split second that that is the Democrats. There's too much evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately you are right. Democrats might use the pretense of their supposed concern for working people to advance their decadent agenda same way as Republicans pretend to care for moral issues to advance corporate interests.

The third party is not viable in the majority system (as opposed to proportional) of voting. Only thing left is to use lobbying and pressure on whomever is in the office. This is not much.

33 posted on 12/03/2006 9:07:35 AM PST by A. Pole (For today's Democrats abortion and "gay marriage" are more important that the whole New Deal legacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
Politicians are just men, normal human beings, who act legislatively according to the wishes of their voters.

Only during the election time. In the meantime (much longer than elections) they act according the wishes of those who pressure them. The regular voters after using their ballot go to sleep.

34 posted on 12/03/2006 9:11:41 AM PST by A. Pole (For today's Democrats abortion and "gay marriage" are more important that the whole New Deal legacy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Torie

Interesting - you won't vote for a protectionist Republican. I guess that means you wouldn't have voted for Abe Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt, among many others.

Abraham Lincoln was asked about using British rails and trains to create the Transcontinental Railroad, since British imports were cheaper than American made equipment. He rejected cheap imports, saying that if America bought the rails from the British, America would have the rails and the British would have the money. But if Americans bought the rails from other Americans, America would have both the rails and the money.

Luckily you are much smarter than Abe Lincoln and reject his advice on protectionism. BTW, his policies turned the U.S. into the arsenal of democracy and an industrial powerhouse.


35 posted on 12/03/2006 9:12:33 AM PST by Howard Jarvis Admirer (Howard Jarvis, the foe of the tax collector and friend of the California homeowner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Democrats might use the pretense of their supposed concern for working people to advance their decadent agenda

Change "might" to "WILL" and you've got a bullseye.

Ironically, that decadent agenda runs exactly counter to the working class that voted the perpe-traitors into power.

36 posted on 12/03/2006 9:14:29 AM PST by IronJack (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Yes, precisely my point, "regular" voters need pressure, we need to quit coddling them as unimpeachable, and somehow vaunted.

And those who go to sleep, or don't vote and cynically don't participate, and just complain about politicians as corrupt, sleazy, ect, obviously are lazy and don't want to do the hard work of recruiting men whom share their values, raising money, running serious campaigns ect.

As far as pressure on our Reps, that comes from us too.

Lobbyists are simple a group of voters who have issues, and have every right to get together and put that issue before their rep, as do all lobbyists whom the Fed gov has purview. If the gov were smaller, and stayed out of American's and their business, then there would not be so many lobbyists. (and whom is it that demands the gov get involved in every aspect of our lives? AMERICANS who demand every real or perceived justice be served, anything uncomfortable or worrisome must be addressed with some new law or tax)

Another bogus myth about lobbyists to make Americans feel they have no power over their government.

We have enormous power, if we would only use it.
37 posted on 12/03/2006 9:28:03 AM PST by roses of sharon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: elk

I think its over.


38 posted on 12/03/2006 9:33:34 AM PST by JimFreedom (My patience is growing thin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Average wages in this country are UP $3.00

Source? I'm finding dozens that say just the opposite.

Bruce Bartlett on Wages on NRO Financial According to the BLS, wages and salaries have fallen from 72.6 percent of total compensation in 2000 to 70 percent in June of this year. At the same time, ... article.nationalreview.com/?q=OGEzYTg0MzNmMGU5OWYzNjQ0OTUwOGJkMjI2MTBjYzU=

39 posted on 12/03/2006 9:40:48 AM PST by WatchingInAmazement ("Nothing is more expensive than cheap labor," prof. Vernon Briggs, labor economist Cornell Un.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Bush and his supporters need to realize that corporatism is not conservativism (my tagline). While wages overall may be up, most of it is increases in bonuses and payoffs for people at the very top. Many people have had to move back in with their parents and take low-paying jobs so they can pay off student loans for jobs that have been outsourced of just eliminated, while being unable to provide for their immediate families.


40 posted on 12/03/2006 10:05:30 AM PST by Clintonfatigued (Corporatism is not conservatism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Average wages in this country are UP $3.00 but of course that doesn't validate their emotion based opinions of the Economic Nationalists so they simply tune out all factual reality to cling to their failed dogmas of economic isolationism.

The significant word in your post is "average".

41 posted on 12/03/2006 10:14:08 AM PST by lucysmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JimFreedom
Ya' think?

In addition, I think the Dems will be carefully biding their time until 2008, get their candidate in, and then all bets are off. I can't imagine them showing their true colors and ruining their roll into the 2008 elections.

Freepers may not want to hear this, but a friend of mine who deals in political campaign stuff as a profession said that if a candidate is truly pro-life, that person will be reliably decent on all other issues - War on Terror, economy, taxes, entitlements, and on and on. The Repubs, controlled by the mushy middle/gang of 14/what-ever you want to call them, who follow the sad "road to the middle" which really means socially liberal, fiscally conservative (or are they, really), will have lost it for us, finally, I think.

What is true compassion? It's allowing families like mine to keep more of their income, so that we can engage in personal acts of compassion, instead of looking to the goverment to take as much money and control as possible and redistribute it in entitlements, via thousands of bureaucrats to do so much less with so much more.

One example, I think the HUGE problem with the Evangelicals right now, is their failure to act locally, and behave in accordance with their God-given principles (think Haggard and his personal problems), instead, they now give platform and credibility to the socially liberal (think Warren + Obama), and call upon the goverment to do things the church is supposed to (e.g., help the poor, the imprisioned, etc). Pride goes before a fall -- unforunately, when the salt loses its flavor, we're all in trouble.

Can anyone articulate the truth and the principles? What about a Gingrich/Steele ticket?

42 posted on 12/03/2006 10:16:12 AM PST by elk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Torie
"free trade" agreements are not treaties and are not ratified by Congress. There are a jolly lot of "working groups" doing an end run around Constitutional government these days doing the job of Congress minus the "elected representation of citizens" bit. I am tired of seeing the ludicrous assertion made by "free traders" that Congress's authority has not been usurped.
43 posted on 12/03/2006 10:26:06 AM PST by hedgetrimmer (I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
International organizations like the WTO really have no influence at all in the U.S

This is an outright lie.
44 posted on 12/03/2006 10:27:53 AM PST by hedgetrimmer (I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon

You mean, like go to the Supreme Court, with justices who say we need to look to international law to make decisions about US citizens? Like the ones who made the Kelo vs New London decision?


45 posted on 12/03/2006 10:30:52 AM PST by hedgetrimmer (I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: roses of sharon
Treasonous Congressmen showing their preference for international institutions over our own, to push "free trade".

The United States should sue China at the WTO over rampant copyright abuses, and ban US Internet companies from revealing their users' identities to Beijing, the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission said. The commission's report showed "that once again China's record of adhering to its WTO obligations has been inconsistent, spotty and halting," Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, seen here on 09 November 2006, said.
46 posted on 12/03/2006 10:38:21 AM PST by hedgetrimmer (I'm a millionaire thanks to the WTO and "free trade" system--Hu Jintao top 10 worst dictators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Average wages in this country are UP $3.00

It is not a lie. Mine is down 25% from what it was only five years ago. It just depends whether you are the jerk who decides to outsource the jobs, or if you're one whose job they outsource. You need to be more flexible in your reading habits.

47 posted on 12/03/2006 10:51:15 AM PST by GingisK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GingisK; MNJohnnie
Average wages in this country are UP $3.00 It is not a lie. Mine is down 25% from what it was only five years ago. It just depends whether you are the jerk who decides to outsource the jobs, or if you're one whose job they outsource. You need to be more flexible in your reading habits.

He's not going to answer it appears. Cat got your tongue, Johnny?

48 posted on 12/03/2006 11:17:09 AM PST by WatchingInAmazement ("Nothing is more expensive than cheap labor," prof. Vernon Briggs, labor economist Cornell Un.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: WatchingInAmazement; GingisK; MNJohnnie
Cat got your tongue, Johnny?


49 posted on 12/03/2006 11:25:01 AM PST by A. Pole (spanalot: "the Kremlin has killed more Jews than Hitler")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
You can read about the process of Congress ratifying treaties, and executive agreements here. The bottom line is that all trade agreements, however labeled, require Congressional approval, either of the agreement itself, or via prior legislation granting the president the power to enter into an executive agreement.

Below is a cut and paste of the relevant paragraph to make it easier for you. I hope this helps:

"In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Where treaties require advice and consent by 2/3rds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, Congressional executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President. Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain Congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S."

...

"An executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president's authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, or (3) from a prior act of Congress. For instance, it is as commander-in-chief that the President negotiates and enters into status of forces agreements (SOFAs), which govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces stationed in other nations.

"Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties)."

50 posted on 12/03/2006 11:47:32 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-84 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson