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

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It would be great to finally be able to trade with other countries.
You won't believe the cool stuff that they make in other countries

we do trade a lot but if liberals get their way we'll trade a lot less because liberals lack the IQ to understand free trade and comparative advantage.

 

[idb]

It would be great to finally be able to trade with other countries.
You won't believe the cool stuff that they make in other countries

we do trade a lot but if liberals get their way we'll trade a lot less because liberals lack the IQ to understand free trade and comparative advantage.

Yes, that whole Liberal movement to shut down international trade must be fought against with all effort!!

 

[Moonglow]

It would be great to finally be able to trade with other countries.
You won't believe the cool stuff that they make in other countries

we do trade a lot but if liberals get their way we'll trade a lot less because liberals lack the IQ to understand free trade and comparative advantage.

There is no advantage but for those with excess capital and low consumption at home looking for more markets to sell to..It's the end game of free trade and capitalism mixed with a quasi-mercantilism...It's the same thing Britain went through during the Victorian era...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"On the Fox News’ “Journal Editorial Report”, Saturday June 20th, when asked why some conservatives are against Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, panelist Jason Riley said it was because they don’t trust Obama."

True.

Opposition to the proposed measure is predicated solely on the right's unwarranted hostility toward the president, not the merits of the Act.

We know this to be the case because democratic opposition to the proposed measure is predicated on concerns over American workers being adversely effected, something most on the right couldn't care less about.

 

[johnwk]

"On the Fox News’ “Journal Editorial Report”, Saturday June 20th, when asked why some conservatives are against Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, panelist Jason Riley said it was because they don’t trust Obama."

True.

Opposition to the proposed measure is predicated solely on the right's unwarranted hostility toward the president, not the merits of the Act.

Baloney! Those who support and defend our constitutionally limited system of government are opposed to the currently proposed Fast Track Trade Authority because it violates our Constitution!

In the case of the currently proposed Fast Track Power being exercised by the president with respect to deals cooked up with foreign nations, our Constitution is explicitly clear that any such deals require a two thirds vote in the Senate to become enforceable law.

Of course, we are told that the Pacific Rim deal is not a treaty and therefor the two thirds threshold vote is not necessary, and a mere majority vote is needed to approve the deal. And this immediately raises the question as to what is meant by the word “treaty’ as the word was used and understood by our founders.

In accordance with a fundamental rule of constitutional law, ”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) SEE: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law , Meaning of Language.


So, what was the meaning of “treaty” as understood and used by our founding fathers?


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.

What supporters of Fast Track may not understand, or intentionally ignoring is, having been ruled by a despotic King our founders feared creating an omnipotent president and thus limited his powers significantly by a number of provisions in our Constitution, one being the two thirds vote requirement as mentioned above for any deals cooked up by our President. And, our founders fear is explicitly stated in Federalist No. 75 by Hamilton with regard to the President’s treaty making authority and why the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law.” unless approved by a two thirds vote. 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.

And to give another example of how much our founders feared an omnipotent president, they even refused giving the President Line-item veto power! Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how they suffered under that power and why it should not be given to the president. He says:

'”The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''

Now, I have laid out my argument showing both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution establishes a two thirds vote is required to approve any deals cooked up by our President with foreign countries. The currently proposed Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority, since it reduces the required vote to a simple majority is unconstitutional. What is your evidence that I am in error?

JWK



The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Opposition to the proposed measure is predicated solely on the right's unwarranted hostility toward the president, not the merits of the Act.

.

Clayton is an illiterate who does not know that the right supports Obama on free trade more than the left.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Baloney! Those who support and defend our constitutionally limited system of government are opposed to the currently proposed Fast Track Trade Authority because it violates our Constitution!

of course thats very very stupid since the Constitution contains the Commerce Clause which was designed to insure free trade.

 

[johnwk]

Baloney! Those who support and defend our constitutionally limited system of government are opposed to the currently proposed Fast Track Trade Authority because it violates our Constitution!

of course thats very very stupid since the Constitution contains the Commerce Clause which was designed to insure free trade.

I am not sure what your point is. What is "stupid"?


Aside from that, have you noticed how our big media, including Fox News, avoids discussing how Fast Track Trade authority as currently proposed is unconstitutional in that it lowers the two thirds approval vote required by our Constitution to a simple majority to make a deal cooked up by our president with foreign governments enforceable law?


Why is Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Eric Bolling, Kimberly Guilfoyle, Greg Gutfeld, Dana Perino, Megyn Kelly, Neil Cavuto, John Stossel, Greta Van Susteren, Bret Baier, Chris Wallace, etc., more than willing to ignore this extraordinary power being placed in the president’s hands when our Constitution explicitly prohibits it and for good cause? Why is our media not sounding the alarm over this despotic assumption of power?


Indeed, it appears that Fox News has become part of the problem and is not "fair and balanced".


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.

 

[Skylar]

Well John.....you convinced me. Looking at the evidence you presented, I have to agree with you. NAFTA and free trade agreements like it are clearly treaties. With almost all examples in precedent over 'international commerce' related to tariffs, port inspections, state tax rates on international goods and the like.

The key difference would be an obligation by the US. In regulating interstate commerce, all actions are unilteral to the US. We can raise a tarriff. We can lower it. We decide.

In a trade agreement, we're obligated to agreements we've made. And if we act unilaterally we violate those agreements. Its those obligations that are the difference between a treaty and merely regulation of commerce. And the new trade agreements have obligations o-plenty.

The constitution places a higher threshold for such treaties (and with them obligations) for just such a reason: treaties are contracts. They reduce unilateral sovereignty. And thus require a 2/3rd vote of the Senate.

The Senate cannot abdicate this constitutional requirement by merely voting they can with a simple majority.

 

[Tehon]

Why is our media not sounding the alarm over this despotic assumption of power?


Indeed, it appears that Fox News has become part of the problem and is not "fair and balanced".


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.

Again, there could be several reasons why the media is not making people aware. First, this has been the way these deals have been implemented since 1974. Second, it has been challenged in court and the courts upheld it. And last, corporate broadcasters are part of the system that reaps the benefits of these deals. Keep beating those drums though, awareness is the first step.

 

[g5000]

What Fox News continues to ignore and covers up is, conservatives are against the currently proposed Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority because it unconstitutionally lowers the required approval vote for deals cooked up by any president from a two thirds required vote to a mere majority vote.

What a crock of bullshit.

Fast Track Authority which requires only a majority vote has been around for various trade deals since 1974. This is not the first time.

So much for your theory.

We've already had brainless morons on this forum admit they opposed the bill "because Obama" without knowing ****-all about the treaty itself.

 

[g5000]

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.

 

[g5000]

Fast track (trade)

The authority was in effect from 1975 to 1994, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and from 2002 to 2007 by the Trade Act of 2002. Although it expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007, it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011. In 2012, the Obama administration began seeking renewal of the authority.

Key word: Renewal.

Key word: Obama.

In the second half of the 1990s, fast track authority languished due to opposition from House Republicans.

"Because Clinton".

Then Bush:

Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush made fast track part of his campaign platform in 2000.

At 3:30 a.m. on July 27, 2002, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 narrowly by a 215 to 212 vote with 190 Republicans and 27 Democrats making up the majority. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64 to 34 on August 1, 2002.

On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote.

 

[Skylar]

Fast track (trade)

The authority was in effect from 1975 to 1994, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and from 2002 to 2007 by the Trade Act of 2002. Although it expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007, it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011. In 2012, the Obama administration began seeking renewal of the authority.

Key word: Renewal.

Key word: Obama.

In the second half of the 1990s, fast track authority languished due to opposition from House Republicans.

"Because Clinton".

Then Bush:

Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush made fast track part of his campaign platform in 2000.

At 3:30 a.m. on July 27, 2002, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 narrowly by a 215 to 212 vote with 190 Republicans and 27 Democrats making up the majority. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64 to 34 on August 1, 2002.

On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote.

All blithering conspiracy theories aside, John does have one salient point: the trade agreement is a treaty. And a treaty requires 2/3rds majority to ratify.

The Senate can't vote away its 2/3rds requirement with a simple majority vote.

 

[g5000]

Fast track (trade)

The authority was in effect from 1975 to 1994, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and from 2002 to 2007 by the Trade Act of 2002. Although it expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007, it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011. In 2012, the Obama administration began seeking renewal of the authority.

Key word: Renewal.

Key word: Obama.

In the second half of the 1990s, fast track authority languished due to opposition from House Republicans.

"Because Clinton".

Then Bush:

Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush made fast track part of his campaign platform in 2000.

At 3:30 a.m. on July 27, 2002, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 narrowly by a 215 to 212 vote with 190 Republicans and 27 Democrats making up the majority. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64 to 34 on August 1, 2002.

On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote.

All blithering conspiracy theories aside, John does have one salient point: the trade agreement is a treaty. And a treaty requires 2/3rds majority to ratify.

The Senate can't vote away its 2/3rds requirement with a simple majority vote.

As I said, this has been done before and is entirely constitutional.

 

[Skylar]

Fast track (trade)

The authority was in effect from 1975 to 1994, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and from 2002 to 2007 by the Trade Act of 2002. Although it expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007, it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011. In 2012, the Obama administration began seeking renewal of the authority.

Key word: Renewal.

Key word: Obama.

In the second half of the 1990s, fast track authority languished due to opposition from House Republicans.

"Because Clinton".

Then Bush:

Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush made fast track part of his campaign platform in 2000.

At 3:30 a.m. on July 27, 2002, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 narrowly by a 215 to 212 vote with 190 Republicans and 27 Democrats making up the majority. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64 to 34 on August 1, 2002.

On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote.

All blithering conspiracy theories aside, John does have one salient point: the trade agreement is a treaty. And a treaty requires 2/3rds majority to ratify.

The Senate can't vote away its 2/3rds requirement with a simple majority vote.

This was a vote on fast track authority, not the treaty itself.

Some people have gotten themselves confused.

Nodding....a majority vote for fast track authority. Which means that a treaty can be passed without 2/3rd majority.

That's a constitutional violation.

The senate can't alleviate its 2/3rd requirement for ratifying a treaty with a simple majority vote for fast track. The constitutional requirement for 2/3rds for treaty ratification remains. A treaty can't be ratified with any less than 2/3rds.

I've found no court case that says otherwise.

 

[g5000]

Fast track (trade)

The authority was in effect from 1975 to 1994, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and from 2002 to 2007 by the Trade Act of 2002. Although it expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007, it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011. In 2012, the Obama administration began seeking renewal of the authority.

Key word: Renewal.

Key word: Obama.

In the second half of the 1990s, fast track authority languished due to opposition from House Republicans.

"Because Clinton".

Then Bush:

Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush made fast track part of his campaign platform in 2000.

At 3:30 a.m. on July 27, 2002, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 narrowly by a 215 to 212 vote with 190 Republicans and 27 Democrats making up the majority. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64 to 34 on August 1, 2002.

On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote.

All blithering conspiracy theories aside, John does have one salient point: the trade agreement is a treaty. And a treaty requires 2/3rds majority to ratify.

The Senate can't vote away its 2/3rds requirement with a simple majority vote.

This was a vote on fast track authority, not the treaty itself.

Some people have gotten themselves confused.

Nodding....a majority vote for fast track authority. Which means that a treaty can be passed without 2/3rd majority.

That's a constitutional violation.

The senate can't alleviate its 2/3rd requirement for ratifying a treaty with a simple majority vote for fast track. The constitutional requirement for 2/3rds for treaty ratification remains. A treaty can't be ratified with any less than 2/3rds.

I've found no court case that says otherwise.

Show me a court case which says fast track authority is unconstitutional. It's been around for over four decades.

 

[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.

 

[Skylar]

Fast track (trade)

The authority was in effect from 1975 to 1994, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and from 2002 to 2007 by the Trade Act of 2002. Although it expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007, it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011. In 2012, the Obama administration began seeking renewal of the authority.

Key word: Renewal.

Key word: Obama.

In the second half of the 1990s, fast track authority languished due to opposition from House Republicans.

"Because Clinton".

Then Bush:

Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush made fast track part of his campaign platform in 2000.

At 3:30 a.m. on July 27, 2002, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 narrowly by a 215 to 212 vote with 190 Republicans and 27 Democrats making up the majority. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64 to 34 on August 1, 2002.

On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote.

All blithering conspiracy theories aside, John does have one salient point: the trade agreement is a treaty. And a treaty requires 2/3rds majority to ratify.

The Senate can't vote away its 2/3rds requirement with a simple majority vote.

This was a vote on fast track authority, not the treaty itself.

Some people have gotten themselves confused.

Nodding....a majority vote for fast track authority. Which means that a treaty can be passed without 2/3rd majority.

That's a constitutional violation.

The senate can't alleviate its 2/3rd requirement for ratifying a treaty with a simple majority vote for fast track. The constitutional requirement for 2/3rds for treaty ratification remains. A treaty can't be ratified with any less than 2/3rds.

I've found no court case that says otherwise.

Show me a court case which says fast track authority is unconstitutional. It's been around since at least 1974.

I haven't found a court case that refers to it at all. So we're left with the constitution requiring a 2/3rds vote of the Senate to ratify a treaty. How can the Senate change that with a simple majority vote? Describe the constitutional process?

How can a law override the constitution?

And is it limited to treaty ratification? 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?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Show me a court case which says fast track authority is unconstitutional. It's been around for over four decades.

good for you you finally got one right.