Ted Cruz: No, TPP is NOT a ‘living agreement’

The Right Scoop ^ | Jun 12, 2015

[SoConPubbie]

The more he spins this issue, the more he convinces people they’re being hustled.

Nope, not so.

[savedbygrace]

This press release is so full of misstatements

Unless you list them and explain why each is a misstatement, this is merely an unsubstantiated claim.

[RKBA Democrat]

Blessed by the same scotus that blessed abortion on demand and obamacare. Their “blessing” isnt worth a pitcher of warm spit.

[SoConPubbie]

Blessed by the same scotus that blessed abortion on demand and obamacare. Their “blessing” isnt worth a pitcher of warm spit.

True, however, we shouldn't mix issues should we?

Just because they were wrong on Dred Scott, Abortion, Obamacare, does not mean or imply the were wrong on this issue.

[RKBA Democrat]

I went through that a few weeks ago. It wasn’t fun. I don’t like admitting I got taken for a ride.

I got taken big time.

The whole thing boiled down to... this is either (a) incredible stupidity or (b) treachery.

Ted Cruz isn’t a stupid man.

[napscoordinator]

I must admit I am enjoying the heck out of this. I LOVE it when people wake the heck up from a nightmare. I of course knew it all along. Some are slower then others but I am just glad they are realizing before our country made a huge mistake (which really never would have happened but just in case....I LOVE LOVE LOVE this).

[nathanbedford]

Unless you list them and explain why each is a misstatement, this is merely an unsubstantiated claim.

I trust by the time you reach the foot of this explanation you will count the claim as substantiated:

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

FALSE: the courts have upheld congressional-executive agreements of which this is a type and even upheld naked executive agreements.

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

FALSE: if a president must find 2/3 of the Senate to consent to his treaty he must as a practical matter invite the Senate in on the takeoff if he wants them there at the landing. This bill reverses the power structure so that the president need only find half the Senate to agree with his negotiating positions, he has less need of recalcitrant senators so he will concede less "control" to them in the negotiations. Since no president has ever been denied his fast-track treaty it is clear that Congress has exercised less not "more" control.

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.

TRUE BUT FALSE: The words are accurate but the meaning is utterly deceptive. By the time the treaty is presented under a fast-track regimen the game is over and 60 days of transparency simply will not undo all of the influences peddling that has brought us to that point.

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.

FALSE:The Constitution specifies only one way to make a treaty and that is with two thirds consent of the Senate the second way described here is not provided for in the Constitution as asserted but has simply accreted over time.

TPA explicitly provides that nothing in any trade agreement can change U.S law.

FALSE: no Congress can bind the next.

Senator Cruz has not taken a position either in favor or against TPP.

TRUE BUT MISLEADING: because Senator Ted Cruz has helped put TPA in place, TPP is a done deal and so his final vote against it will be irrelevant just as other senators have indulged the fraud of voting for cloture of filibuster and then voting against the bill.

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

FALSE!

[savedbygrace]

You are mis-reading and misunderstanding. I will number each example.

1) Only Congress can make U. S. law. The Court might have allowed the results of the two examples to remain, but the Court did not call it law.

2) It is true that Congress is the only entity that can make U.S. law and nothing about TPP or TPA could change that. Neither TPP nor TPA is a treaty, so your argument with regard to treaties is moot.

3) I suspect this President would not abide by the 60 day rule, so I’ll give you that one. Still, Cruz did not say the Obama would definitely abide by it, so it’s still a lose for you.

4) You mis-read this one. He said there are two ways to make LAW. Only one of the two ways is with regard to treaties. Also, once again, neither TPP nor TPA is a treaty, so your point is again lost.

5) Isn’t TPA for a specified number of years?

[savedbygrace]

Forgot to add this note of clarification:

I believe that the agreement that is being negotiated is actually a treaty, but this is not the first time that an administration and a Congress have agreed to call a treaty an agreement so they could avoid the 2/3 vote requirement.

If they actually called it a treaty, none of the nonsense we are discussing would be happening.

[cynwoody]

Is TPP genuinely unbeatable by anything short of a hurricane making landfall in the District, no matter how bad the bill is?

That's what the protectionists would have you believe. But the truth is, the 535 are free to vote as they will, having heard at least 60 days' worth of input from their constituents, re the final version of TPP.

The main collision here seems to be between the free trade view and the tariff view of the world—which is the Democrats' turf. That's where your goal is to pass special tariffs to protect your friends and contributors—as opposed to a free-for-all that rewards innovation. My read of history is that the latter system is more just and involves less government interference, and embodies what has made America succeed.

That's absolutely true!

[nathanbedford]

I think we live on different planets. Congressional-executive agreements i.e. laws between the United States and foreign countries have been routinely upheld by the Supreme Court. These have been upheld but nevertheless are substitutes for treaties requiring two thirds approval by the Senate. My view and the view of Lawrence Tribe (proving that law as well as politics makes for strange bedfellows) is that this is an unconstitutional act. My view and Lawrence Tribe's view is distinctly minority.

These are "laws." In addition to this manner of making laws there is a so-called "executive agreement" these are commitments made by the president of the United States without authority from Congress. The Supreme Court has upheld these naked executive agreements countless times and they have the effect of "law." I refer you to the 1983 Hofstra Law Review article which I cannot cite but which you can simply Google.

The main problem with all of this is that we know it is a flimflam. Once fast-track is made law on this trade agreement, the final product is inevitably going to be approved by the reduced majority required for the Senate and in the House. We have seen these omnibus bills with increasing frequency, a notorious example of which is Obamacare. Another example: the empowerment of the federal bureaucracy through the Environmental Protection Agency. If you deny that the Environmental Protection Agency has made "law" over the subsequent decades we do indeed live on a different planet.

I decline to reason backwards from admiration of an individual candidate. I prefer to form my political judgments about candidates reasoning from their position on issues toward the individual.

Ted Cruz has paved the way for this omnibus legislation which no doubt contains environmental and immigration provisions with which the executive will make law just as the executive is making law under the environmental protection act and under Obamacare. Now that fast-track has been approved with the help of Ted Cruz, it is all over.

Ted Cruz will now vote against the final TPP and claim that he has opposed it all along.

Many will believe him.

[savedbygrace]

Rather than defending your assertions, you chose to be non-responsive, and you demonstrated a lack of logic and reason.

Buh bye.

[nathanbedford]

Look up the law, read the damp law review article!

[savedbygrace]

Another non-responsive reply.

[savedbygrace]

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?

[Democrat_media]

you are right 2/3rds lowered to only half. that is a dictatorship

The Constitution requires that 66% of the Senate approve any treaty (and amendments are allowed).

With this fast track or trade promotion Authority bill they want to lower it to 51% and no amendments. that's a dictatorship and the end of America. Obama can basically rewrite USA laws as treaties override USA laws.

It would be ridiculously easy to pass a treaty with only a 51% up or down vote , no debates and no amendments.

This is unconstitutional. We want amendments that could kill a bad bill as the Constitution allows. We want 66% approval not 51% .Call Congress . Tell them to vote no on TPA (Trade promotion authority).

[nathanbedford]

I decline to reason backwards from admiration of an individual candidate. I prefer to form my political judgments about candidates by reasoning from their position on issues toward the individual.

Do you realize that your method of argumentation consists of veering between adulation of the individual and ad hominem against those with whom you disagree? Your argument consists of resort to authority while accusing the other side of failing to produce evidence, evidence which you adamantly ignore.

[savedbygrace]

You must be quoting someone else, because I did not say that. Maybe you should ping that person with your comment.

[nathanbedford]

It is quite obvious that you either do not comprehend or simply do not read that which is addressed to you.

[nathanbedford]

It is quite obvious that you either do not comprehend or simply do not read that which is addressed to you.