Ted Cruz 2016 : Demands TPP Public Disclosure -- REFUSES Obama-Boehner-Ryan Secret TPP Treason !

Kuhner Radio Report ^ | 2015-06-13 | Patton@Bastogne

[Patton@Bastogne]

.



CLICK This LINK to HEAR the Entire Kuhner Radio Interview











A Note to Conservatives on Trade Agreements


Senator Cruz entirely understands the widespread suspicion of the President. Nobody has been more vocal in pointing out the President’s lawlessness or more passionate about fighting his usurpation of congressional authority.

Senator Cruz would not and will not give President Obama one more inch of unrestricted power.



There have been a lot of questions and concerns about 2the ongoing Pacific trade negotiations. Many of those concerns, fueled by the media, stem from confusion about Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Let’s unpack the issues one by one.



What are TPA and TPP?


TPA stands for Trade Promotion Authority, also known as “fast track”. TPA is a process by which trade agreements are approved by Congress. Through TPA, Congress sets out up-front objectives for the Executive branch to achieve in free trade negotiations; in exchange for following those objectives, Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade agreements without amendments. For the past 80 years, it has proven virtually impossible to negotiate free-trade agreements without the fast-track process.



TPP stands for Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP is a specific trade agreement currently being negotiated by the United States and 11 other countries, including Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. China is not a negotiating partner. There is no final language on TPP because negotiations are still ongoing and have been since late 2009. Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP. There will be no vote on TPP until the negotiations are over and the final agreement is sent to Congress.



Some Key Facts:


· Neither the Senate nor the House has voted yet on the TPP.

· Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law and nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.

· TPA gives the Congress more control up-front over free trade agreements.

· TPA mandates transparency by requiring all trade agreements (including TPP) to be made public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on them.



Does TPA give up the Senate’s treaty power?

No. Under the Constitution, there are two ways to make binding law: (1) through a treaty, ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, or (2) through legislation passed by a majority of both Houses of Congress. TPA employs the second constitutional path, as trade bills always have done. It has long been recognized that the Constitution’s Origination Clause applies to trade bills, requiring the House of Representatives’ involvement.



Does the United States give up Sovereignty by entering into TPP?

No. Nothing in the agreement forces Congress to change any law. TPA explicitly provides that nothing in any trade agreement can change U.S. law. Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law, and Congress is the only entity that can change U.S. law. Nothing about TPP or TPA could change that.



Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPP?

Senator Cruz has not taken a position either in favor or against TPP. He will wait until the agreement is finalized and he has a chance to study it carefully to ensure that the agreement will open more markets to American-made products, create jobs, and grow our economy. Senator Cruz has dedicated his professional career to defending U.S. sovereignty and the U.S. Constitution. He will not support any trade agreement that would diminish or undermine either.



Does Senator Ted Cruz support TPA?

Yes. Senator Cruz voted in favor of TPA earlier this year because it breaks the logjam that is preventing the U.S. from entering into trade deals that are good for American workers, American businesses, and our economy. Ronald Reagan emphatically supported free trade, and Senator Cruz does as well. He ran for Senate promising to support free trade, and he is honoring that commitment to the voters.

Free trade helps American farmers, ranchers, and manufacturers; indeed, one in five American jobs depends on trade, in Texas alone 3 million jobs depend on trade. When we open up foreign markets, we create American jobs.

TPA also strengthens Congress’ hand in trade negotiations, and provides transparency by making the agreement (including TPP) public for at least 60 days before the Congress can act on any final agreement. Without TPA, there is no such transparency, and the Congress’ role in trade agreements is weaker.



Is TPA Constitutional?

TPA and similar trade authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court as constitutional for more than 100 years.



Does TPA give the President more authority?

No. TPA ensures that Congress has the ability to set the objectives up-front for free trade agreements.

Trade Promotion Authority has been used to reduce trade barriers since FDR. When Harry Reid took over the Senate, he killed it. History demonstrates that it is almost impossible to negotiate a free-trade agreement without TPA. Right now without TPA, America is unable to negotiate free-trade agreements, putting the United States at a disadvantage to China, which is taking the lead world-wide. It is not in America’s interests to have China writing the rules of international trade.

Moreover, Obama is going to be president for just 18 more months. TPA is six-year legislation. If we want the next president (hopefully a Republican) to be able to negotiate free-trade agreements to restart our economy and create jobs here at home then we must reinstate TPA. With a Republican president in office, Senate Democrats would almost certainly vote party-line to block TPA, so now is the only realistic chance.



How can Senator Cruz trust Obama?

He doesn’t. Not at all. No part of Senator Cruz’s support for TPA was based on trusting Obama. However, under TPA, every trade deal is still subject to approval by Congress. If the Obama Administration tries to do something terrible in a trade agreement, Congress can vote it down. And most congressional Democrats will always vote no—because union bosses oppose free trade, so do most Democrats—which means a handful of conservative congressional Republicans have the votes to kill any bad deal. That’s a serious check on presidential power.



Isn’t TPP a “living agreement”?

That particular phrase—a foolish and misleading way to put it—is found in the “summary” portion of one particular section of the draft agreement. That section allows member nations to amend the agreement in the future, expressly subject to the approval of their governments. Thus, if some amendment were proposed in the future, Congress would have to approve it before it went into effect.



But isn’t TPA a secret agreement?

No, it is not. The full text of TPA (fast track) is public. What the Senate just voted for was TPA, not TPP.

Right now, the text of TPP is classified. That is a mistake. Senator Cruz has vigorously called on the Obama administration to make the full text of TPP open to the public immediately. The text being hidden naturally only fuels concerns about what might be in it. Senator Cruz has read the current draft of TPP, and it should be made public now.



Critically, under TPA, TPP cannot be voted on until after the text has been public for 60 days. Therefore, everyone will be able to read it long before it comes up for a vote.



Couldn’t Obama use a trade agreement to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants?

No. There is one section of TPP that concerns immigration, but it affects only foreign nations—the United States has explicitly declined to sign on to that section.

Moreover, Senator Cruz introduced a TPA amendment to expressly prohibit any trade deal from attempting to alter our immigration laws. [LINK to release.]

Two Republican Senators (Lindsey Graham and Rand Paul) blocked the Senate’s consideration of that amendment, but the House of Representatives has agreed to include that language in the final text of the trade legislation. Thus, assuming the House honors that public commitment, federal law will explicitly prohibit any trade deal from impacting immigration.

And, regardless, no trade agreement can change U.S. law; only Congress can change U.S. law.









.

[Diogenesis]

The lack of honesty was by Sen. Cruz.

And his odious impugning Sen. Sessions who spoke up for America
WAS an attack, and helpS(ed) Obama.

By his own choice, sadly this is Sen Cruz today:

[DesertRhino]

Cruz is not a Normandy soldier. He is a politician. Its sick to pretend he is of the same cloth as a soldier about to storm a beach.

He is a politician I agree with 99% and hope he straightens up. This was a sellout to his money masters.

[TNMOUTH]

Ah, Diogenese...still supporting Rand are we?

[philman_36]

FACT SHEET: Transparency and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Transparency is a two-way street, and increasing the amount of information flowing from stakeholders to the government does not lessen the government's obligation to provide information about its activities and proposals to the public. That said, the USTR's efforts to help stakeholders engage with negotiators and make their case before the negotiating countries is promising.”
Jodie Griffin, Public Knowledge Policy Blog

It’s declassified and made public once it’s agreed to. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

Outlines of TPP
As one would imagine it's full of boilerplate.

[Junk Silver]

“Those with an agenda will see to it that he is destroyed.
Never mind that they NEVER give us a good alternative.”

You want a good alternative?

How about the Constitution of the United States?
How about Congress actually using its power to oversee treaty negotiations?

How about jailing for treason anyone who attempts to undermine the sovereignty of this nation by attempting to push through a secret treaty?

There, now you have some good alternatives. You can’t say that we critics NEVER give you any.

[philman_36]

INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS WITHOUT SENATE APPROVAL
The capacity of the United States to enter into agreements with other nations is not exhausted in the treaty-making power. The Constitution recognizes a distinction between ''treaties'' and ''agreements'' or ''compacts'' but does not indicate what the difference is. ³⁸⁸ The differences, which once may have been clearer, have been seriously blurred in practice within recent decades. Once a stepchild in the family in which treaties were the preferred offspring, the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification.

Sorry, nothing in there about 2/3 no longer needed. Got anything else?

[Principled]

That is very instructive. Thanks for posting that.

It is one example of why we do not trust. And should not trust.

[jjotto]

You miss the forest for the trees.

If Congress agrees it is an agreement, then treaty requirement of 2/3 Senate vote doesn’t apply.

[Thidwick]

I am not disagreeing with you, and you may (or may not) have a legitimate argument. I am asking questions, and at the same time trying not to get sucked in by the few on this thread that clearly intend to undermine. I hadn’t considered that to be you, should I?

[philman_36]

The TPP is the cornerstone of the Obama Administration’s economic policy in the Asia Pacific. The large and growing markets of the Asia-Pacific already are key destinations for U.S. manufactured goods, agricultural products, and services suppliers, and the TPP will further deepen this trade and investment. (an assertion, not a fact) As a group, the TPP countries are the largest goods and services export market of the United States. U.S. goods exports to TPP countries totaled $698 billion in 2013, representing 44 percent of total U.S. goods exports. U.S. exports of agricultural products to TPP countries totaled $58.8 billion in 2013, 85 percent of total U.S. agricultural exports. U.S. private services exports totaled $172 billion in 2012 (latest data available), 27 percent of total U.S. private services exports to the world. America’s small- and medium-sized enterprises alone exported $247 billion to the Asia-Pacific in 2011 (latest data available).

Never mind that they NEVER give us a good alternative.

How about we manufacture more goods and they'll find their way to market on their own? You have to remove some regulatory hurdles first though, don't you.

[astroaddict]

Agreed.. I’ve been saying it for a couple weeks now: Obama WANTED the TPA to fail. This played out perfectly for them. The people on here who fell for this ruse should be embarrassed.

[astroaddict]

You were duped. Obama and the Dems WANTED TPA to fail, that’s why he embraced it, he knew he could create revolt among the Republican constituents.

You and others who were railing against the TPA were pawns in the White House’s game. You fell for their game. Hook, line, and sinker.

[TNMOUTH]

Funny, but didn’t Sessions support CAFTA?

[ncalburt]

Let me introduce you to Heidi Cruz ?

A Goldman Sachs VP who specialty is Trade Agreements ,

Goldman Sachs has been doing the Biggest a
lobbying on K Street ,

They Will make Billions and destroy our country in return.

You have been suckered by two DC insiders who plan to reap millions on the Trojan Horse !

[Thorliveshere]

I think this is the case. It sure is doing the trick of making us turn on each other. Pelosi’s reaction are just so not her... her being opposed to giving Obama more power... how odd.

I think I’m going to hear Cruz out on this one. My gut instinct tells me to trust him.

[Moorings]

Has Scott Walker been standing against TAA and TPP?

[philman_36]

If Congress agrees it is an agreement, then treaty requirement of 2/3 Senate vote doesn’t apply.

No shi kidding, Sherlock? Tell me something I don't know or can't find out on my own.

U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 11—Political Affairs
11 FAM 723.2-1 Treaties
(CT:POL-44; 05-26-2006)
International agreements (regardless of their title, designation, or form) whose entry into force with respect to the United States takes place only after the Senate has given its advice and consent are “treaties.” The President, with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators present, may enter into an international agr eement on any subject genuinely of concern in foreign relations, so long as the agreement does not contravene the United States Constitution.

11 FAM 723.2-2 International Agreements Other Than Treaties
(CT:POL-48; 09-25-2006)
International agreements brought into force with respect to the United States on a constitutional basis other than with the advice and consent of the Senate are “international agreements other than treaties.” (The term “sole executive agreement” is appropri ately reserved for agreements made solely on the basis of the constitution al authority of the President.) There are three constitutional bases for in ternational agreements other than treaties as set forth below. An in ternational agreement may be concluded pursuant to one or more of these constitutional bases:

(1) Treaty;
(2) Legislation;
(3) Constitutional authority of the President.

You miss the forest for the trees.

You still haven't proven your assertion, to wit...Treaties do not require 2/3 anymore. The senate voted that power away this spring.
Can you even find a tree, much less a forest,or is distraction your only tool?

[jjotto]

You are simply lying about my “assertion”. Why?

[philman_36]

Funny, but didn’t Sessions support CAFTA?

Jeff Sessions on the Issues
Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (Jul 2005)

Wasn't Reagan once a Democrat?

[ducks1944]

We all need to hold out support and see how each of these people come down on things. When a person changes view over and over to get votes I’m done with them. To me stick with UR core believes and let chips fall where they may.