Jamie Dupree overlooks two thirds vote requirement for TPP deal.

[johnwk]

Today on the Sean Hannity show while Jamie Dupree was on and talking about Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal cooked up by Obama with a number of foreign nations, he assured Sean to not be worried about the deal because Congress gets to vote on it before it can become law. And Jamie repeatedly pointed this out.

What Jamie Dupree did not say is, if Fast Track Trade Authority passes the House, then the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal cooked up by Obama with a number of foreign nations will not need the constitutionally required two thirds vote threshold for approval as our Constitution commands for any deals the president consummates with foreign powers! Fast Track unconstitutionally lowers the two thirds vote threshold needed to a simple majority vote. And this is an irrefutable violation of our founders clear intentions requiring a two thirds vote to approve any deals our president cooks up with foreign countries!

And why did our wise founding fathers require a two-thirds vote? Hamilton explains why in Federalist No. 75 with respect to the President’s treaty making authority. Hamilton points out the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law” because he:

“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.”

In the end, our founders agreed to allow the president to negotiate deals with foreign nations, but only with the constitutional requirement that such deals consummated with foreign countries would not have the force of law unless approved by a two thirds vote in the Senate.

I’m not sure if Jamie Dupree overlooked this critical requirement when discussing FTTPA and the TPP with Sean Hannity, but the facts are what they are and the Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority Bill, having lowered the vote threshold to a simple majority for a deal cooked up by the president with foreign nations is an irrefutable violation of our founders expressed language, not to mention that it is intentionally designed to circumvent Congress’ exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and violates our Constitution’s separation of powers. In fact, it is designed to do exactly what our founders forbid in crystal clear language.

JWK



The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47

 

[johnwk]

Cato Institute misrepresents truth and facts regarding TPA and Pacific Rim deal.


See: Top Nine Myths About Trade Promotion Authority And The Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Cato Institute tells us “The TPA legislation… is clearly constitutional because Congress retains its authority to approve or reject all future trade agreements.” They go on to also say “Finally, it’s important to reiterate that, contrary to some claims, FTAs are not treaties.”

If the Pacific Rim deal is not a treaty, then what is it with reference to our Constitution’s expressed provisions, and what constitutional provision grants power to the president over the subject matter identified?

Fortunately, the truth cannot be changed to what it is not by Cato asserting the Pacific Rim trade deal is not a treaty. The unavoidable truth is, whatever Cato wishes to call the TPP deal, if it is not approved by a two thirds vote it violates the very intentions of our founders requiring a two thirds vote for any deals cooked up by the president with foreign nations! And this is verified in Federalist No. 75!

In regard to the president making “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.”

And this is why a two thirds vote is required of any deals made by the president with foreign powers to have the force of law. Is the Pacific Rim deal not a deal with foreign powers? If the Pacific Rim deal is one cooked up by the president and foreign powers, which it is, then it requires a two thirds vote to have the force of law as pointed out in Federalist No. 75.

It should also be pointed out that TPA, since it is to apply to the Pacific Rim deal which affects the raising of revenue through tariffs, the President's deal cooked up with foreign nations is unconstitutional because all bills affecting the raising of revenue are to originate in the House of Representatives and not in the Oval Office!

The use of FTTPA with regard to regulations of commerce with foreign nations has in fact been challenged as being an attack upon our Constitution's separation of power for over a hundred years! 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 authority with regard to regulations of commerce are unquestionably unconstitutional!


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[Pete7469]

Thanks, I actually heard that segment of the show. I've heard a lot of hype that the "Fast Track" bill itself was "secret" and that's not the case.

I'm not really worried about a treaty that most democrooks oppose getting passed, although having the moonbat messiah's filthy finger prints on it makes me apprehensive. Somehow I'm doubtful the treaty will make it through the senate.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens I suppose.

 

[johnwk]

Thanks, I actually heard that segment of the show. I've heard a lot of hype that the "Fast Track" bill itself was "secret" and that's not the case.

I'm not really worried about a treaty that most democrooks oppose getting passed . . .

Well you should because FTTPA is not a “conservative” idea nor is it about “free trade”. It’s about creating a managed trade, managed by a group unelected by the American People who represent the interests of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation, and a majority of whom are foreigners!


This crap started with the NAFTA, and for the proof of what I have just stated above see Establishment of Binational Panels which were created under the NAFTA, and who now regulate America's commerce with foreign nations instead of Congress [the States and People’s elected representatives] as mandated by our Constitution.


Fast Track Trade Authority is to enhance the above “managed trade” extending it to the Pacific Rim Nations, under which regulations of commerce will no longer be set by the Congress of the United States [the States and People’s representatives] who have exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations under our Constitution. Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority is a proposal to circumvent Congress’ exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and have internationalists dictate the rules for America’s commerce with foreign nations.


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.

 

[Edgetho]

I hate liberturdians

 

[Pete7469]

I hate liberturdians

I can relate to libertarians. They're not promoting a stronger centralized state, they're trying to weaken the federal government.

I agree that they would weaken us on the international front though, by severely reducing our military foot print. It should be easy to see how that would be a problem.

Democrooks want a stalinist state and a weak global status. So I'm willing to work with libertarians to defeat democrooks.

 

[Pete7469]

Well you should because FTTPA is not a “conservative” idea nor is it about “free trade”. It’s about creating a managed trade, managed by a group unelected by the American People who represent the interests of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation, and a majority of whom are foreigners!


This crap started with the NAFTA, and for the proof of what I have just stated above see Establishment of Binational Panels which were created under the NAFTA, and who now regulate America's commerce with foreign nations instead of Congress [the States and People’s elected representatives] as mandated by our Constitution.


Fast Track Trade Authority is to enhance the above “managed trade” extending it to the Pacific Rim Nations, under which regulations of commerce will no longer be set by the Congress of the United States [the States and People’s representatives] who have exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations under our Constitution. Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority is a proposal to circumvent Congress’ exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and have internationalists dictate the rules for America’s commerce with foreign nations.


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.

Isn't congress allowed to delegate power? I am suprised they're willing to give another inch to the moonbat messiah. The reason I'm not worried about it, is because I don't think congess will pass it. I have no illusions that anything obozo is behind is anything but detrimental to the country.

Treaties can easily be broken as well.

The Pentagon is considering scrapping a Cold War-era treaty and deploying nuclear-capable intermediate-range cruise missiles in Europe over Moscow’s alleged treaty violations, AP reported. The Kremlin says it is looking closely into the report.

The US administration is mulling deploying medium-range missiles in Europe and Asia that would be potentially capable of destroying military targets within Russian territory, the Associated Press reports.

 

[johnwk]

It’s infuriating how our folks in Washington, and this includes their accomplices over at the Cato Institute, how they attempt to change the definition of words and phrases which appear in our Constitution as they were understood during the time our Constitution was framed and ratified, in order to accomplish their evil ends!

Of course, this deceptive tactic violates a fundamental rule of constitutional construction. With regard to the language of the constitution 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)


Now, 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