Cato Institute advances myth about Pacific Rim Trade Agreement

[johnwk]

SEE: Top Nine Myths AboutTrade Promotion Authority And The Trans-Pacific Partnership (http://www.cato.org/blog/top-nine-myths-about-trade-promotion-authority-trans-pacific-partnership)

Under “Myth 1: TPA and U.S. FTAs are unconstitutional and undemocratic!” wefind:

”Finally, it’s important to reiterate that, contrary to some claims, FTAsare not treaties (which are typically “self-executing,” require two-thirdsapproval 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 ratificationby the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious tothe common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (myemphasis)


So, what is meant by a “treaty” as expressed by our Founders?


In Federalist No. 64 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed64.asp) Jaydefines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:

”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only anothername for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who wouldmake any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on usonly so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”


And in Federalist No. 75 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed75.asp)Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, Its objects are CONTRACTSwith foreign nations, which have the force of law…”

Finally, In Federalist No. 22 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed22.asp)Hamilton talks about “a treaty of commerce” as follows:

”A nation, with which we might have a treaty of commerce, could with muchgreater 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 TradeAgreement falls within the meaning of a treaty as the word was used andunderstood by our founding fathers, and as such, requires a two thirds vote tobecome an enforceable contract, or bargain with the nations involved.

So why do the proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Free TradeAgreement, and this includes the snakes at the Cato Institute, pretend it isnot a treaty? The obvious answer is, to avoid having to bribe a two thirds voteto accomplish their evil doings!


And if you think bribery is not taking place on this issue, here is theevidence that members of our Senate have sold their vote!

See:Corporations shellout $1.2mn in Senate contributions to fast-track TPP (http://rt.com/usa/262553-corporations-millions-senate-campaigns/)

“What the documents showed was that out of a total of nearly $1.2 milliongiven, 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 thesedays,” Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us, told the Guardian. “They knowexactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fundtheir re-election campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.”

And, here is a list of dirt bag traitorous Republican Senators who voted tocircumvent our representative system of government and allow the president tousurp 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 thefreedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power thanby violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates,vol. III, page 87 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=98&itemLink)

[Ronin Truth]

Lest there be any lingering doubts about Rothschild influence at Cato. :( :mad:

[johnwk]

Lest there be any lingering doubts about Rothschild influence at Cato. :( :mad:


What supporters of Fast Track may not understand 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 to approve any deals cooked up by him with foreign governments. And to give an example of how much our founders feared an omnipotent president, they even refused giving the President Line-item veto power! And with respect to the reasons for this denial of power to the president, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how they suffered under that power. 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.''

And so, the real purveyor of "myth" is the Cato Institute with respect to promoting Fast Track Trade authority being given to the president.

Aside from that It is very troubling that our Republican Party Leadership, and those at Fox News who suggest they are “conservatives” i.e., 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., are more than willing to ignore this extraordinary power being placed in the presidents 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?

We have been amply warned in THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787, that:

"When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin."

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)