Posted on 06/12/2015 6:03:57 AM PDT by JOHN W K
SEE: Top Nine Myths About Trade Promotion Authority And The Trans-Pacific Partnership
Under “Myth 1: TPA and U.S. FTAs are unconstitutional and undemocratic!” we find:
”Finally, it’s important to reiterate that, contrary to some claims, FTAs are not treaties (which are typically “self-executing,” require two-thirds approval by the Senate, and have the force of law upon ratification).”
Now, with regard to the language contained in constitutions see:
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally
”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis)
So, what is meant by a “treaty” as expressed by our Founders?
In Federalist No. 64 Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:
”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”
And in Federalist No. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…”
Finally, In Federalist No. 22 Hamilton talks about “a treaty of commerce” as follows:
”A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with much greater facility prevent our forming a connection with her competitor in trade, though such a connection should be ever so beneficial to ourselves.”
The irrefutable fact is, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement falls within the meaning of a treaty as the word was used and understood by our founding fathers, and as such, requires a two thirds vote to become an enforceable contract, or bargain with the nations involved.
So why do the proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free Trade Agreement, and this includes the snakes at the Cato Institute, pretend it is not a treaty? The obvious answer is, to avoid having to bribe a two thirds vote to accomplish their evil doings!
And if you think bribery is not taking place on this issue, here is the evidence that members of our Senate have sold their vote!
See:Corporations shell out $1.2mn in Senate contributions to fast-track TPP
“What the documents showed was that out of a total of nearly $1.2 million given, an average of $17,000 was donated to each of the 65 “yes” votes. Republicans received an average of $19,000 and Democrats received $9,700.
“It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us, told the Guardian. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their re-election campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.”
And, here is a list of dirt bag traitorous Republican Senators who voted to circumvent our representative system of government and allow the president to usurp Congress' legislative functions:
Alexander, Tenn.; Ayotte, N.H.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Blunt, Mo.; Boozman, Ark.; Burr, N.C.; Capito, W.V.; Cassidy, La.; Coats, Ind.; Cochran, Miss.; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Cotton, Ark.; Crapo, Idaho; Cruz, Texas; Daines, Mont.; Ernst, Iowa; Fischer, Neb.; Flake, Ariz.; Gardner, Colo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Hatch, Utah; Heller, Nev.; Hoeven, N.D.; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Johnson, Wis.; Kirk, Ill.; Lankford, Okla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Moran, Kan.; Murkowski, Alaska; Perdue, Ga.; Portman, Ohio; Risch, Idaho; Roberts, Kan.; Rounds, S.D.; Rubio, Fla.; Sasse, Neb.; Scott, S.C.; Sullivan, Alaska; Thune, S.D.; Tillis, N.C.; Toomey, Pa.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.
JWK
" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
TiSA: A Secret Trade Agreement That Will Usurp America’s Authority to Make Immigration Policy.
Money quote:
“The leaked TiSA text makes it clear that contrary to the claims by proponents of fast-track trade promotion authority, the reality is that those voting for fast track are ceding key powers to make immigration law and policy to an unelected group of corporations and foreign governments.”
I’ll believe a conservative with a PHD in economics (Congressman Dave Brat )
Brat is against it.
https://www.numbersusa.com/pages/house-tpa-social-media-page
Bullcrap. One cannot try to deflect criticism as “myth” while simultaneously keeping the actual data secret.
The people driving this travesty should be pummeled, politically. And maybe arrested.
Yeah John. Bring out the Federalist Papers to try to sell that steaming TPA pile. When is the last time anybody in DC gave a crap about THEM? 1825? Must be getting desperate to get Obunga’s agenda passed. Well, I only know one Titanium Rule; if Obunga is FOR it, the entire Country should be AGAINST it.....if we know what’s good for us.
The problem IS NOT international trade; it’s all the other stuff buried deep inside the verbiage, such as carte blanche powers for Obunga to bring in millions more welfare leaches from Pacific Rim crapholes, firearm confiscation, etc.
Back in the 1980s when I was engaged in a research project at the University of Maryland concerning our nation's founding and our Constitution's legislative intent, I came across a paper published in 1883 titled "TREATY TARIFFS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL" which confirms the existing attempt to use fast track with regard to regulations of commerce are unquestionably unconstitutional!
JWK
To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.
What you fail to mention in your propaganda post is, TPA lowers the required threshold vote to a mere majority vote for any deals cooked up by our President with foreign countries.
And what was our Founders thinking with regard to our president's power to negotiate treaties? Their fear is expressed in Federalist No. 75 by Hamilton with regard to the President’s treaty making authority and sheds light on why the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law.” Hamilton points out the president
“might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”
So, as it turns out, the founders intentionally commanded by our Constitution, that any deals cooked up by the president with a foreign power would not have “the force of law” unless approved by two thirds of the Senators present. Fast Track would, unconstitutionally, lower the vote requirement to a mere majority vote.
Ted Cruz is a freaken traitor!
JWK
To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.
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.