Boehner punishes conservatives for upholding Constitution RE: Fast Track

[johnwk]

See Boehner doles out new punishment (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/246080-boehner-doles-out-new-punishment)

”Boehner allies have been retaliating against rank-and-file members who voted against a procedural motion earlier this month, nearly derailing a major trade package favored by Republican leaders that is set to clear the House on Thursday.”

Our Constitution is crystal clear that any deals cooked up by our president must receive a two thirds approval vote by our national legislature to be binding law. See Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2: The President shall have power "... by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur" Fast Track unconstitutionally lowers the two thirds vote threshold to a simple majority vote.

Speaker of the House John Boehner, is the one who needs to be punished, no punishment to be left off the table, for pushing through legislation intentionally designed to circumvent our Constitution’s command as stated above.

The irrefutable fact is, without a 2/3 approval vote TPP is not binding law! And yet, Boehner has decided to punish “conservatives” for being loyal to their oath of office to uphold our Constitution.

But, just why did our Founders decide to require a two thirds vote rather than a simple majority to approve deals cooked up by our president? Our Founding Fathers fear is expressed in Federalist No. 75 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed75.asp) by Hamilton with regard to the President’s treaty making authority and sheds light on why the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “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.”

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!

Boehner and his despotic allies in the House need to be remove from office this coming election for spitting on our Constitution and punishing those who dare to uphold it.

CLICK HERE (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll374.xml) for the list of House Republicans who spat upon our Constitution and ignored its expressed requirement for a two thirds approval vote for any deals cooked up by our president with foreign powers.

And here is the list of Senate whores who approved Fast Track (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-roll-call-vote-passage-trade-bill-32007151) on 6/24/15.

Republican whores in the Senate are:

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; Daines, Mont.; Enzi, Wyo.; 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.; Sasse, Neb.; Scott, S.C.; Sullivan, Alaska; Thune, S.D.; Tillis, N.C.; Toomey, Pa.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.

And if you don’t think they are whores see Corporations shell out $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 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.”

JWK



To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance Crowd (http://www.cfr.org/project/1369/international_institutions_and_global_governance.h tml) 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.

[Ronin Truth]

How dare they? What are they trying to do, uphold their solemn oath of office? What treasonous SCUM? :p

[Vanguard101]

I'm fed up with Conservative leadership. You have Amash, Sanford, and Labrador, and you are telling me you guys cannot build a coalition? Robert Taft is rolling in his grave

[Cleaner44]

I'm fed up with Conservative leadership. You have Amash, Sanford, and Labrador, and you are telling me you guys cannot build a coalition? Robert Taft is rolling in his grave

I notice that Walter Jones sided with Amash and Massie. At least we have more people standing up than just Dr No like the old days.

[charrob]

Why don't they do this? Does anyone know? Fast track seems a done deal since the Senate passed it; but couldn't the Supreme Court over-rule this based on it being unconstitutional?

--------------------------------

by: Eric Zuesse:
"However, in order to assist blockage of Fast Track for Obama’s proposed ‘trade’ treaties, it would greatly help if one or more of the very vocal opponents in the U.S. Senate, against Fast-Tracking these treaties — Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, and Harry Reid, for examples — would petition the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of the provision in the Trade Act of 1974 that introduced Fast Track, and thus on Fast Track’s abolition of the Constitution’s two-thirds rule. Perhaps the case might become titled something like, “Warren v. United States,” where “Warren” stands for America’s public, and “United States” stands for America’s aristocracy."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/the-two-contending-visions-of-world-government.html

[wizardwatson]

How dare they? What are they trying to do, uphold their solemn oath of office? What treasonous SCUM? :p

They're not violating their oath. They have to pass the bill to find out if they're violating their oath. If they don't pass it they'll never know if they are violating their oath.

You're not as clever as they think they are.

[Ronin Truth]

They're not violating their oath. They have to pass the bill to find out if they're violating their oath. If they don't pass it they'll never know if they are violating their oath.

You're not as clever as they think they are.

You obviously need to read my post again, very slowly and for comprehension this time.

[johnwk]

Why don't they do this? Does anyone know? Fast track seems a done deal since the Senate passed it; but couldn't the Supreme Court over-rule this based on it being unconstitutional?

--------------------------------

by: Eric Zuesse:
"However, in order to assist blockage of Fast Track for Obama’s proposed ‘trade’ treaties, it would greatly help if one or more of the very vocal opponents in the U.S. Senate, against Fast-Tracking these treaties — Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, and Harry Reid, for examples — would petition the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of the provision in the Trade Act of 1974 that introduced Fast Track, and thus on Fast Track’s abolition of the Constitution’s two-thirds rule. Perhaps the case might become titled something like, “Warren v. United States,” where “Warren” stands for America’s public, and “United States” stands for America’s aristocracy."

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/06/the-two-contending-visions-of-world-government.html

You expect our Supreme Court to enforce our Constitution when it uses its power to give a false legitimacy to Congress legislative tyranny?

JWK


Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress' or a Supreme Court's majority vote

[johnwk]

If Fox News would have discussed our Founder’s meaning of the word “treaty” and why they required a two thirds approval vote in the Senate to make treaties cooked up by the president binding, I doubt if Fast Track would have passed the Senate and House. Unfortunately, Fox News constantly beat the drum that unions were against Fast Track which gave the impression that Republicans should be in favor of Fast Track. This is how our establishment media plays low information voters.
.
But getting back to our Founders clear intentions requiring a two thirds approval vote for treaties, Our Founding Fathers fear is expressed in Federalist No. 75 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed75.asp) by Hamilton with regard to the President’s treaty making authority and sheds light on why the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “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.”

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!

What supporters of Fast Track do not want to admit, and our big media including Fox News refuses to discuss 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. And to give another specific 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 particular power being denied to the president, Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_604.asp) 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.''

is it not troubling that our Republican Party Leadership, and our media personalities at Fox News which claims to be "fair and ballanced” 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 willing to ignore the Pacific Rim deal which Obama has cooked up cannot be made enforceable law until a two thirds approval vote is secured from our Senate?

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)

[CaptUSA]

johnwk, are you just trolling, being purposefully disingenuous, are you just ignorant?

Trade agreements are not treaties. There is a very important distinction. Because treaties are legally-binding, they require a 2/3rds vote. Because trade agreements are politically-binding, they just need the majority. TPP is being billed as being a trade agreement (although, there are some that have doubts). If TPP were to be legally-binding, it would become a treaty and would instantly be in violation of the Constitution. I don't even think the Robert's Court would be able to misconstrue the language bad enough in order to allow any exception.

All that being said, it is still not a good idea if we can't debate the details openly. But you are (and consistently have been) ignoring the truth in order to fit your narrative.

[johnwk]

johnwk, are you just trolling, being purposefully disingenuous, are you just ignorant?

Trade agreements are not treaties. There is a very important distinction. Because treaties are legally-binding, they require a 2/3rds vote. Because trade agreements are politically-binding, they just need the majority. TPP is being billed as being a trade agreement (although, there are some that have doubts). If TPP were to be legally-binding, it would become a treaty and would instantly be in violation of the Constitution. I don't even think the Robert's Court would be able to misconstrue the language bad enough in order to allow any exception.

All that being said, it is still not a good idea if we can't debate the details openly. But you are (and consistently have been) ignoring the truth in order to fit your narrative.


You are offering you personal opinion which is unsupported by the words of our Constitution, or the legislative intent of our Constitution as expressed by our founders.

For example, what is the meaning of the word treaty as expressed by our founders?


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, or bargain with the nations involved.

Now, aside from that, your insulting comments are not appreciated. You would do well to simply confine you comments to the subject of the thread and refrain from personalizing the thread.


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)

[charrob]

Trade agreements are not treaties. There is a very important distinction. Because treaties are legally-binding, they require a 2/3rds vote. Because trade agreements are politically-binding, they just need the majority. TPP is being billed as being a trade agreement (although, there are some that have doubts). If TPP were to be legally-binding, it would become a treaty and would instantly be in violation of the Constitution. I don't even think the Robert's Court would be able to misconstrue the language bad enough in order to allow any exception.

All that being said, it is still not a good idea if we can't debate the details openly. But you are (and consistently have been) ignoring the truth in order to fit your narrative.


I don't understand this;

what is your definition of legally binding?
what is your definition of politically binding?
Once this TPP is enacted, we are legally bound to honor it, are we not?