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

[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.

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. And this has absolutely nothing to do with not trusting Obama or any president. It has to do with enforcing the language of our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.



Additionally, FTTA also unconstitutionally allows the president to assume Congress’ legislative functions with respect to making regulations of commerce. Those functions are, creating a bill to regulate commerce with foreign nations, debating that bill, amending that bill to reflect the states and people best interests, and then sending that bill to the president for his signature or veto. FTTA, in effect, allows the president to assume Congress’ legislative functions with respect to the making of regulations of commerce and leaves Congress with the president’s veto power

Finally, all bills raising revenue are, by our Constitution, to originate in the House of Representatives. The Pacific Rim deal, since it sets rules affecting tariffs, must originate in the House of Representatives and not in the Oval Office.

Why is Fox News unwilling to discuss the unconstitutionality of lowering the required approval vote for deals cooked up by any president from a two thirds required vote to a mere majority vote, in addition to its other unconstitutional features?

Why is Fox News so willing to allow the president to usurp Congress’ powers when it comes to making law regulating commerce with foreign nations, and leaving the states and people’s representatives stripped of their constitutionally assigned legislative functions?

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]

Has anyone 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.

[johnwk]

Congress can enact whatever it so desires and the president can sign it. But that does not mean that what has been signed into law is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and the intentions under which our Constitution was adopted.

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 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed64.asp) 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 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed75.asp) 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 (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 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.

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)