Jason Riley at Fox News, skews truth about Fast Track Trade Authority’s opposition

[LoneLaugher]

Bush supported the trade agreement. The Republican Congress supported it.

Right wing conservative hero Paul Ryan supports it. Even bigger right wing hero Ted Cruz supports it.

And now we have discovered that the love the rubes have for all these people COMBINED is outweighed by their hatred of Obama. They hate this treaty simply "because Obama".

That is incredibly fascinating.

Fast track is free trade. Republicans support it; Democrats lack the IQ to understand free trade so they don't support it. Without trade you slowly starve to death making everything yourself.

That's a high IQ comment?

 

[Tehon]

The court case you guys are looking for is Made in the USA Foundation vs. the United States

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Can the senate pass a 'fast track' ammendment process that reduces the number of states that can pass an amendment to a simple majority? If not, why not?

no because some states would obviously object on grounds that Senate had no authority to curtail their rights. But, if whole Senate agrees to give up its own right to a 2/3 votes on an aspect of free trade agreement because such an agreement would be impossible without it, it is Constitutional.

 

[Tehon]

Bush supported the trade agreement. The Republican Congress supported it.

Right wing conservative hero Paul Ryan supports it. Even bigger right wing hero Ted Cruz supports it.

And now we have discovered that the love the rubes have for all these people COMBINED is outweighed by their hatred of Obama. They hate this treaty simply "because Obama".

That is incredibly fascinating.

Fast track is free trade. Republicans support it; Democrats lack the IQ to understand free trade so they don't support it. Without trade you slowly starve to death making everything yourself.

Or we could put people back to work with jobs.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Bush supported the trade agreement. The Republican Congress supported it.

Right wing conservative hero Paul Ryan supports it. Even bigger right wing hero Ted Cruz supports it.

And now we have discovered that the love the rubes have for all these people COMBINED is outweighed by their hatred of Obama. They hate this treaty simply "because Obama".

That is incredibly fascinating.

Fast track is free trade. Republicans support it; Democrats lack the IQ to understand free trade so they don't support it. Without trade you slowly starve to death making everything yourself.

Or we could put people back to work with jobs.

dear, I'm sure everyone wants to put people back to work with jobs.

 

[Skylar]

The court case you guys are looking for is Made in the USA Foundation vs. the United States

That's certainly a case that addresses the issue, and it certainly sides with congress being able to pass the law with simple majorities. But th

But its not binding precedent. As its a circuit court decision. The constitutional issue can still be raised. As the court side stepped the issue:

We therefore conclude that this case presents a nonjusticiable political question, thereby depriving the court of Article III jurisdiction in this matter.

MADE IN THE USA FOUNDATION v. U.S. Leagle.com

By finding that they lacked the jurisdiction to rule on the matter.

 

[Skylar]

Can the senate pass a 'fast track' ammendment process that reduces the number of states that can pass an amendment to a simple majority? If not, why not?

no because some states would obviously object on grounds that Senate had no authority to curtail their rights. But, if whole Senate agrees to give up its own right to a 2/3 votes on an aspect of free trade agreement because such an agreement would be impossible without it, it is Constitutional.

How can a law override the constitution? At the very least, wouldn't the same threshold necessary to ratify a treaty be necessary to relinquish authority to ratify treaties?

Using your 'state' rationale, there would be states that object. Just as there are senators that object in this case. So why wouldn't a simple majority of States allow them to reduce the threshold of constitutional amendments to a simple majority?

If objection of some of the States invalidates the process, then the objection of some senators would invalidate this one.

 

[Skylar]

Can the senate pass a 'fast track' ammendment process that reduces the number of states that can pass an amendment to a simple majority? If not, why not?

no because some states would obviously object on grounds that Senate had no authority to curtail their rights. But, if whole Senate agrees to give up its own right to a 2/3 votes on an aspect of free trade agreement because such an agreement would be impossible without it, it is Constitutional.

The whole senate hasn't agreed to this. There is no way they can get even a 2/3 majority. Let alone the whole senate. Yet you're saying that a simple majority can bring the whole senate with it.

Why couldn't a simple majority of states bring the whole country with it? Even if some disagreed?

You are applying two different standards. In one you are insisting that supermajority requirements can be overridden by a simple majority vote, EVEN IF other senators object. In the other, you're arguing that supermajority requirements can't be overridden by a simple majority vote, BECAUSE other states object.

That's some inconsistent logic.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Does President Obama....a Democrat....understand free trade?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If objection of some of the States invalidates the process, then the objection of some senators would invalidate this one.

no, the Senate cant curtail the states rights because the states have separate and independent authority but it can curtail its own rights especially when this treaty would be impossible if the President did not have fast track authority

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Does President Obama....a Democrat....understand free trade?

this seems to be the one odd case where he shows high intelligence. No one can explain it but thank God.

 

[Skylar]

If objection of some of the States invalidates the process, then the objection of some senators would invalidate this one.

no, the Senate cant curtail the states rights because the states have separate and independent authority but it can curtail its own rights especially when this treaty would be impossible if the President did not have fast track authority

I'm modifying my question slightly. Instead of a majority of the senate 'fast tracking' constitutional amendments, I'm asking if a simple majority of States could.

Can a simple majority of states reduce the 3/4 super majority necessary to pass an amendment to a simple majority? If not, why not?

And if no, then how can a simple majority of the senators reduce constitutionally required super majorities to a simple majority in the senate?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Does President Obama....a Democrat....understand free trade?

this seems to be the one odd case where he shows high intelligence. No one can explain it but thank God.

So....it's possible for a Democrat to have the IQ to understand free trade?

Say it, dummy.

 

[FA_Q2]

If objection of some of the States invalidates the process, then the objection of some senators would invalidate this one.

no, the Senate cant curtail the states rights because the states have separate and independent authority but it can curtail its own rights especially when this treaty would be impossible if the President did not have fast track authority

No, that is idiotic.

Then everything in the senate can be done by simple majority because the simple majority could override the constitutional requirement for a higher bar every time.

 

[Skylar]

If objection of some of the States invalidates the process, then the objection of some senators would invalidate this one.

no, the Senate cant curtail the states rights because the states have separate and independent authority but it can curtail its own rights especially when this treaty would be impossible if the President did not have fast track authority

No, that is idiotic.

Then everything in the senate can be done by simple majority because the simple majority could override the constitutional requirement for a higher bar every time.

And why limit it to the Senate. ANY constitutionally required super majority could similarly be reduced to a simple majority with a simple majority vote.

All constitutional action would be a simple majority vote. The only question would be which body was voting.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Does President Obama....a Democrat....understand free trade?

this seems to be the one odd case where he shows high intelligence. No one can explain it but thank God.

So....it's possible for a Democrat to have the IQ to understand free trade?

Say it, dummy.

dear, I have no objection whatsoever to saying Barry got this one right even though it must have been by accident. Why would you think I would object to saying it????? Please think before you write.

 

[Tehon]

no, the Senate cant curtail the states rights because the states have separate and independent authority but it can curtail its own rights especially when this treaty would be impossible if the President did not have fast track authority

Where is this ability to override the constitution by a simple majority written?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Does President Obama....a Democrat....understand free trade?

this seems to be the one odd case where he shows high intelligence. No one can explain it but thank God.

So....it's possible for a Democrat to have the IQ to understand free trade?

Say it, dummy.

dear, I have no objection whatsoever to saying Barry got this one right even though it must have been by accident. Why would you think I would object to saying it????? Please think before you write.

Did you or did you not say that Democrats do not have the IQ needed to understand free trade?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If objection of some of the States invalidates the process, then the objection of some senators would invalidate this one.

no, the Senate cant curtail the states rights because the states have separate and independent authority but it can curtail its own rights especially when this treaty would be impossible if the President did not have fast track authority

No, that is idiotic.

Then everything in the senate can be done by simple majority because the simple majority could override the constitutional requirement for a higher bar every time.

And why limit it to the Senate. ANY constitutionally required super majority could similarly be reduced to a simple majority with a simple majority vote.

i think the key point here is that TPA give the president normal executive power that the executive branch should have to impliment TPP.

 

[Skylar]

If objection of some of the States invalidates the process, then the objection of some senators would invalidate this one.

no, the Senate cant curtail the states rights because the states have separate and independent authority but it can curtail its own rights especially when this treaty would be impossible if the President did not have fast track authority

No, that is idiotic.

Then everything in the senate can be done by simple majority because the simple majority could override the constitutional requirement for a higher bar every time.

And why limit it to the Senate. ANY constitutionally required super majority could similarly be reduced to a simple majority with a simple majority vote.

i think the key point here is that TPA give the president normal executive power that the executive branch should have to impliment TPP.

I think the point here is that constitutional super majorities were sent to the cornfield with simple majority votes.

That's not only constitutionally invalid.......it could reduce ANY constitutionally required super majority to a simple majority vote.

Maybe even lower. A 'quorum' can pass legislation in the Senate. And passage is apparently sufficient to overturn constitutional requirements.