Posted on 06/20/2015 6:30:18 AM PDT by HomerBohn
I admit that there are always things that seem to be used in order to cover up other things that are being done. Last week the House shot down the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill, but passed the Trade Promotion Authority (both are unconstitutional). With the coverage of the Charleston Church shooting in South Carolina, the House advanced the TPA again, and this time it passed.
In a 218-208 vote (previous vote was 219-211), with 28 Democrats and 50 Republicans voting in favor of the bill, the House advanced the fast track bill which would illegally delegate authority to the Executive Branch to work out trade agreements. As I've pointed out before, trade agreements involve tariffs (taxes). As such, those must originate in the House of Representatives.
Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution states:
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…
This is not a treaty, it's a trade agreement. Too many people are confusing the TPA with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is a treaty. I do believe confusion is exactly what is being perpetrated on the American people at this point in order to advance the agenda.
The Hill reports:
The House on Thursday took the first step toward resuscitating the White House's trade agenda by passing legislation granting President Obama fast-track authority.
The bill now goes to the Senate, where the White House and GOP leaders are seeking to strike a deal with pro-trade Democrats.
The Senate is now expected to vote on the legislation, but that is presumed to pass since they have already passed before.
"This is a vote to re-establish America's credibility," said Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI).
Previously, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) attempted to justify such actions by saying that the TPA wouldn't give Obama more authority and chastening others that said such legislation would undermine the law. But it does, in fact, do that.
Furthermore, if this is passed through the Senate and the TPP is approved, there is no doubt that American jobs will be lost, which is, in part, why the TAA was also attempting to be pushed through.
All of this is setting America up for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There is no question about that. RT reports:
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) is a vocal critic of the deal because of a provision called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). The provision would mediate disputes between foreign investors and a government, which Warren believes will inhibit regulation and pose a threat to American sovereignty.
ISDS is designed to address the problem of uneven national economic policies in an interconnected global economy. Foreign investors have to deal with the risk of having their investments seized if and when a new government comes to power and decides to nationalize the businesses of foreign industries. While this isn't a risk in a stable company with a strong judicial system like the United States, it is a genuine risk in other countries without such stability. ISDS is an arbitration process that uses sanctions to put pressure on governments who have unfairly seized property.
That means that ISDS would allow foreign investors to make complaints against the United States, which is a point that many take issue with. Warren argues that the agreement could "tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations."
Many opponents of the TPP worry that multinational corporations could argue that environmental, financial and minimum wage regulations could qualify for a dispute under ISDS, potentially costing the United States expensive damages.
Sorry conservatives, but Republicans are once again selling us out right along with many Democrats. They are selling out American jobs, sovereignty and most of all they are not following the rules of the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.
The push is on now to see if Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) will take to the Senate floor and provide a filibuster for this unconstitutional legislation.
While I think your first argument is suspect (Congress doing something unconstitutional now is not really unconstitutional because they retain the right to do the same sort of action later constitutionally...seems like a patently silly argument), nevertheless your link to the discussion of treaties and other executive actions was exactly what this discussion needs.
We’ve passed similar trade agreements in the same way for decades now, and none have been found unconstitutional, because they weren’t unconstitutional, because they weren’t considered treaties. End of argument.
All the “but, but, but...it sure looks like a treaty” comments in the world don’t change that fact.
Most people against TPA either:
1. are against free trade, and/or,
2. don’t understand what the TPA actually authorizes, and/or,
3. think the GOP is a branch of the Democrat/Progressive Party.
Frankly, I think most who are against it on the GOP side fall under all three categories, i.e., they’re against free trade, don’t realize what the current TPA authorizes, and think Boehner and McConnell are closet Democrats.
From the email sent to constituents by Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, a member of the Republican leadership representing the fifth district of NC:
These fake conservative Reps are sending emails but not addressing the issue on Facebook or Twitter. Trying to keep the issue below the radar to those not informed. You think they would be proud of their votes but apparently not.
This is a sneak attack against Main Street and an economic Pearl Harbor, IMO.
By lower the votes required for passage, TPA guarantees passage of secret trade agreements nobody has seen before approving TPA.
Excuse me for opposing that process. Really, this is Banana Republic process type stuff and we all should be opposed to it on that basis alone. Bush released the text before he requested a TPA. So I am a Bircher to expect a GOP Congress to ask the same of Barack Obama?
You want to empower Obama with this trade promotion authority. that means Congress can write NO amendments and congress must vote in 60 days and only 51% needed to approve to pass any agreement obama writes which will probably be 50,000 pages including a rewrite of immigration laws. that will make it ridiculously easy for Obama to pass anything he calls “free trade” but is really the Obama immigration agenda.
People and the states won't have time to give input on any vote. so the states and the people are shut out and congress is neutered . And you think that's ok and Constitutional to give such power to an anti-American marxist monster. You people are sick and really idiotic. this is not what the Constitution intended nor what America is.
Many voters, perceiving the McKinley Tariff as a boon to wealthy industrialists, registered their displeasure at the polls that fall. House Republicans lost 93 seats and Democrats swung comfortably into a commanding majority.
RINOs never learn...
If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it."
Mark Twain -
>>TPA guarantees passage of secret trade agreements nobody has seen before approving TPA.<<
People keep asserting that passage of TPA guarantees passage of anything Obama negotiates. You base it on “because every trade agreement has passed until now.”
But it’s not automatic, as you assume. Congress can still vote it down, and will if it contains the sort of b.s. being promulgated by both the Left and Right (the Left because the want it to go down for economic reasons.)
Another interpretation of the fact that trade agreements have always passed is that the process works. The negotiators know that overstepping will result in years of wasted effort, so they simply don’t. Instead, they negotiate tariff and quota reductions in good faith. That is a fact borne out by history, the same history you’re using to claim Obama will be able to lay waste to the U.S. via the same process.
>>congress is neutered...<<
Nope. Congress gets to vote it down, and most definitely would if the result was anywhere close to what you’re being told by the scaremongers on both the left and right....and there are plenty of them on both sides of this one.
You want to shoot yourself in the foot, become a protectionist. Might as well advocate for tariffs on products coming from adjoining States while you’re at it. That way you can pay more for everything, including the buggy whips and the dial telephones you’d still be using.
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.