[Uncle Miltie]

it was a “misunderstanding” to say TPA gave away the Senate’s treaty power

That's stepping around the real issue.

Of course the Senate still has to approve any Treaty.

The problem is, TPA deals away in advance the Senate's right to offer Amendments.

0bama WILL sell out America to the maximum amount allowed by the bare majority of Senators necessary to pass his Treaty. Simply, TPA gives 0bama the power to craft the most harmful Treaty he can get away with.

That's a tactical error, at least.

[Uncle Miltie]

OBTW - I’m a fully paid up Cruz supporter. I’m still on Team Cruz. I’m just not going to pretend that giving 0bama any inch is a good idea. Ever.

[Hostage]

You’re wrong on that.

[SoConPubbie]

TPA has been around for about 10 Presidents, give or take, both Democrat and Republican.

TPA has always "dealt away" the amendment process, that's why it is called fast-track.

[txhurl]

Ted’s willingness to ditch his base over this means there are things he wants us to learn about the whole issue.

You can be sure his political opponents are breathless at his braveness on the issue.

Who knows what’s in the classified sections? that half the members of the Pacific countries might be savaged by earthquakes and tsunamis in the near future, stuff like that? I despise the secrecy too but there is something that made Ted take his stand.

I’m looking forward to candid explanations from him this weekend.. this has been the most miserable political week I can remember.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

0bama WILL sell out America to the maximum amount allowed by the bare majority of Senators necessary to pass his Treaty. Simply, TPA gives 0bama the power to craft the most harmful Treaty he can get away with. That's a tactical error, at least.

That's the way I see it.

[katana]

Limiting amendment by Congress to a treaty and requiring straight up or down vote is normal and necessary. But while this administration is in office? No way! So I understand Cruz’ point but disagree with his conclusion. But I’m not in his position. Assuming he might someday be president, voting against that authority now and later demanding it for a treaty his administration is negotiating would be philosophically inconsistent. So others may want to but I’m not jumping ship over this. If I reserved my vote for someone I agreed with 100% of the time I’d have to run myself.

[Plummz]

The Senate has to approve a treaty with a 2/3 vote. All of these “trade agreements” are being classified as “laws” instead of treaties. So they only need a majority in the House and Senate to pass, not 2/3 of the Senate.

[ConservativeMind]

The Senate can still amend any fast-tracked item, but they need 60 votes to do so.

[lavaroise]

Not sure who will control this stuff. Isn’t it a way for companies to violate anti-trust restraints? Isn’t this going to replace the Supreme court, extending the powers of the RIAA?