Alan Grayson has seen and read the TPP Free Trade Agreement. He invites questions from us...

[Triana]

This is the message received from his office tonight in my email:

Dear X,

You spoke, they listened.

Last month, 10,000 of us submitted comments to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), in which we objected to new so-called free trade agreements. We asked that the government not sell out our democracy to corporate interests.

Because of this pressure, the USTR finally let a member of Congress - little ole me, Alan Grayson - actually see the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP is a large, secret trade agreement that is being negotiated with many countries in East Asia and South America.

The TPP is nicknamed "NAFTA on steroids." Now that I've read it, I can see why. I can't tell you what's in the agreement, because the U.S. Trade Representative calls it classified. But I can tell you two things about it.

1) There is no national security purpose in keeping this text secret.

2) This agreement hands the sovereignty of our country over to corporate interests.

3) What they can't afford to tell the American public is that \the rest of this sentence is classified\.

(Well, I did promise to tell you only two things about it.)

I will be fighting this agreement with everything I've got. And I know you'll be there every step of the way.

For now, I've set up an e-mail address where you can ask me questions on this topic or other topics: [e-mail]

I'll pick a few and answer them by video.

True Blue Democrats. Get ready. We're coming.

Courage,

Congressman Alan Grayson

[NYC_SKP]

1. Recommended. (nt)

[Oldtimeralso]

2. k & r n/t

[enlightenment]

3. Nice to know that

checks and balances are so old-school that an agency that answers to the Executive can tell Congress - which has the Constitutional authority to regulate commerce - to kiss off because what they're doing is "classified."

Thanks for posting this; I did send a question to Congressman Grayson.

[AzDar]

4. K & R

[Populist_Prole]

5. Major K&R. So glad he's back

He and Bernie Sanders are the only straight shooters left it seems.

[jtuck004]

6. Classified? A trade agreement? Don't want us to see how little our politicians sell out

labor for?

[whathehell]

12. +10 n/t

[harun]

20. +1, selling out the 99% is something they all want to hide

[JDPriestly]

7. K&R. Let's watch this.

Looks like this agreement is going to run into conflicts with our Constitution.

The Constitution and treaties are the highest law in the land. Looks like our Constitution and this treaty could be incompatible.

In that case, I think the Constitution should be the supreme law of our land and not these trade agreements. We need to do everything we can to prevent this agreement from being approved by Congress. The fact that they have had to keep the negotiations secret makes it very suspect. What an undemocratic process. I oppose this agreement.

Obama should be ashamed for having anything to do with this. Sometimes I wonder whether he ever really even took a course in constitutional law.

[ArcticFox]

14. Sometimes I wonder whether he ever really even took a course in constitutional law.

Worse, he TAUGHT it.

[JDPriestly]

48. How is that possible?

[RC]

31. The Constitution means what those that have money says it means

The more money, the more their interpretations have the force of law.

[Samantha]

43. I agree with you - here is a thread I wrote in 2011 on this subject

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Samantha/56

Treaties are automatically void if they violate the literal Constitution
Posted by Samantha in General Discussion
Sun May 15th 2011, 07:49 AM

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/American...

&quot a) Treaties

The Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." It is controlling as to all officials of the three Branches of the Federal government--Executive, Legislative and Judicial--with regard to all of their pronouncements, actions, decisions, agreements and legislative Acts. Each of them is sworn, by oath of office, to support the Constitution only. To be valid, any treaty must be strictly in conformity to--free from any conflict with--the Constitution. A treaty is like a Federal law in this respect.

The Constitution is supreme over laws and treaties; it expressly states (Article VI, Section 2) that: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . ." This means that any such Law (Act of Congress) which violates the Constitution is automatically made null and void
to start with--nullified by the Constitution itself--and therefore cannot be a part of the "supreme Law of the Land." This is also true as to treaties. "

(End of quoted language) more at above link

So I am far from an expert on this subject, but I am at a total loss in understanding how this could happen.

Sam

[JDPriestly]

47. The link did not work on my computer.

Actually, the Constitution and treaties are equal in the law.

U.S. Constitution

Article VI

. . . .

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

Sorry if I posted some comment to the contrary. That is why it is so important that future trade agreements not be given the status of a treaty.

It takes a 2/3 majority in the Senate to enter into a treaty.

Article II, section 2 defining the president's authority:

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

[Samantha]

49. That paragraph you cite is the same phrase I cite

and I think the key words are, looking at your paragraph is "anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Treaties are equal to the Constitution under this clause with the exception of those that conflict with the Constitution. Those are the ones automatically nullified. I do understand the difference between a trade agreement and a treaty.

I am in no way qualified to argue with anyone over this (so I am just discussing!) but I found a new link and I would like to share that with you. It has the same wording of my original thread:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/limited_gov_treaty.htm

"The Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." It is controlling as to all officials of the three Branches of the Federal government--Executive, Legislative and Judicial--with regard to all of their pronouncements, actions, decisions, agreements and legislative Acts. Each of them is sworn, by oath of office, to support the Constitution only. To be valid, any treaty must be strictly in conformity to--free from any conflict with--the Constitution. A treaty is like a Federal law in this respect."

(note the use of the word "agreement." I assume that any agreements would be held to the same standard as a treaty, meaning it is automatically null and void if it does not comport to the Constitution).

There is also an extremely interesting section on Executive Orders which discusses the limited power of the President. You might find that very interesting (I certainly did). But here is a quote included from Washington's Farewell Address that I believe we both certain agree with:

"Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence, (I conjure you to believe me fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government." (Here "Republican" means that of a Republic.)"

Regardless of what happens, I am sure we will have a lot of legal reasoning thrown at us to persuade us this document is legal. That is why I am thinking the more we discuss the confines of powers of the President as well as the Senate by the Constitution we will be in a better position to assess the rationales given us.

I hope you take a look at this new link because it covers a lot of ground with regard to intent.

Regards,

Sam

[JDPriestly]

50. Thanks. Very interesting.

[bbgrunt]

8. Finally, someone bringing this to light! Thank you Mr. Grayson!

[AdHocSolver]

9. Call it what it is: The Sell Out America Treaty. K and R.

[Egalitarian Thug]

10. Why is it every time we are totally screwed by the republicans, a Democrat comes along and

makes it so much worse?
& R

[Fire Walk With Me]

11. The corporations involved in this should all be broken up and their executives jailed.

Globalisation is a prime driver of plutonomy; they say so themselves:

FIRST REPORT: “Plutonomy: Buying Luxury, Explaining Global Imbalances”

SECOND REPORT: “Revisiting Plutonomy: The Rich Getting Richer”

(The third report is "The Plutonomy Symposium: Rising Tides Lifting Yachts&quot

https://our99angrypercent.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/download-citigroup-plutonomy-memos/

Every American should read these very frank discussions by the ultra-wealthy for the ultra-wealthy. It explains a vast amount of what is going wrong in the world (for the rest of us, at least).

[ReRe]

13. Alan Grayson on TPP

K&R

Thanks for sharing the letter with us! The most onerous and dangerous aspect of it is that it's the FINAL AND COMPLETE SWITCH FROM DEMOCRACY TO CORPORATOCRICY. He calls it NAFTA on steroids. Well that's all we need: To finish us off! So many things going down at one time right now.

[Buns_of_Fire]

15. So since when does a trade representative get to mark documents as "classified"?

Answer: Since the so-far tiny grumblings from the peons suggest that, if the details were made public, we might be feasting on Filet of Multinational CEO in the very near future.

[GeorgeGist]

16. Hope Alan opens this can-o-worms.

Fellow Professional Leftists would be pleased.

[treestar]

17. I thought it was secret?

I thought it was hero worship to automatically believe a politician?

[kentuck]

18. Does it matter if it is true or false?

I think some are judging by veracity? How quaint.

[Maven]

21. Oh? Please link to the text of the proposed agreement.

Thanks.

[Babel_17]

19. Thank you, Congressman Grayson (nt)

[forestpath]

22. K&R

[KoKo]

23. K&R!

[cascadiance]

24. Before being a congressman, Grayson investigated & prosecuted Iraq war profiteers fraud of millions

and was a large part of the BBC documentary that went in to these missing "piles of cash" in Iraq.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/mar/20/post4

I'm confident that someone like Grayson will also help us investigate this fraud and corporate crony bullshit that is the TPP. He's done it before, and he will do it again! Glad we have him back in congress!

[Catherina]

25. The TPP is to stop the Latin American Left from getting any stronger and enrich the 1%

It's a new tool in their arsenal.

Greedy assholes with NO conscience thinking only of how much profit they can make squeezing pennies out of people so poor their working class often can't even afford a pair of shoes, or food for that matter.

Thank you Congressman Grayson. Thanks Triana for sharing this.

Since our Dec. 1 cross-border action, community and NGO organizations from central and Latin America are raising their collective voices in opposition to the TPP. This opposition was solidified at the People’s Summit in Santiago de Chile — parallel to summit EU-CELAC Summit — this past January where civil society gathered to express and share their concerns and develop strategies to stop it. They are calling out the TPP as a ‘tool of disintegration’ in the region because it attempts to destabilize regional processes of integration that challenge the neoliberal model inherent in the TPP.

These alternatives include the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and The Community of Caribbean and Latin American States (CELAC), as well as economic blocs like MERCOSUR and ALBA trading regions. The TPP is seen in Latin America as a second attempt by the United States to push a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) in the region with help from countries whose governments are subservient to de the U.S. led neoliberal ideology and “free trade” economics.

http://stopthetpp.webs.com/general-information

[BrotherIvan]

26. Look how much good one Congress Critter can do if they are on our side

He may not win all the battles but at least he is fighting! Which just goes to show that all the D arguments that they are powerless against the big bad Republicans and keeping powder dry are just bullshit. We should demand more from our representatives. Sadly, some Good Germans on this site decided to mock one of his posts to the shame of this board. But he keeps on going. Bravo!

[NorthCarolina]

33. True that. Imagine what he could accomplish as President. nt

[BrotherIvan]

35. He certainly would use the bully pulpit!

[NorthCarolina]

36. Simply having an HONEST broker in the WH would be fulfilling enough..

imagine an election where campaign promises made before the election, were actually pursued after the election. A President who would not simply give a campaign shout out for transparency, but would demand it as well. Most importantly, a Democrat. Not one of those corporate sponsored, neo-conservative, third-way, DLC New 'dems' that campaign left, then show their true colors, and allegiances, after being elected.

[BrotherIvan]

39. You're singing my tune

To go even further on the dream route, what if politicians didn't campaign, such as in Germany, but instead the voters decided based on their record. That would sure be a change. No need for financing of any kind. But asking for honesty in our public officials now seems like a dream, and one is chided for being naive, or a screamer.

[asjr]

27. I will wait until I know much more about this

agreement before I make any conclusions.

[G_j]

32. Back up Elizabeth Warren: Support transparency in trade negotiations

http://campaigns.dailykos.com/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=440

Back up Elizabeth Warren: Support transparency in trade negotiations

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is standing up to the Obama administration and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office–demanding they release trade documents used as part of negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

"I appreciate the willingness of the USTR to make various documents available for review by members of Congress, but I do not believe that is a substitute for more robust public transparency. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States."

- Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Sign the petition to back up Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s request that all documents being used to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership be released for review by the public.

To U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman:

Negotiating new trade deals should be done in full view of the public. We support Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s request that all trade documents being used in negotiations by the United States as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership be released–as you promised during your confirmation hearings.

[HiPointDem]

28. kr

[annabanana]

29. k & r . . . . .Thank You. . .n/t

[WillyT]

30. HUGE K & R !!!

[tritsofme]

34. If he feels so strongly, Grayson should break the embargo and read the text of the agreement

into the congressional record.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Then our friend Droney can turn him into Freedom Mist™

A big, big win for sensible Americans.

Of course, we'll need to apologize a lot to Republicans, too.

Regards,

Third-Way Manny

[ChazInAz]

37. Any one in Congress with courage?

The entire text of the agreement should miraculously materialize in plain manilla envelopes on the desks of assorted newspapers, Rachel Maddow, Democracy Now, etc.
If our government is so concerned about secrecy (A TRADE AGREEMENT...?), then we need to be equally concerned about hauling those secrets into the light, and finding out who wants them hidden.

[Rain Mcloud]

38. Let me guess,it sets Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland up to be the next East India Trading Co.

Also just like 1773,they need the corporate tax rate and import tariffs removed so that the US can compete with China and India.

[snot]

40. K&R'd!

[PADemD]

41. FYI Key Trade Officials

http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/biographies-key-officials

[davidwparker]

44. K&R

[rug]

45. Borders confine people not capital.

[ancianita]

46. Could the Supreme Court stop this?

[midnight]

51. Kick. Thank you for posting.

I'm going to repost this today. It is one of the best Alan Grayson pieces discussing why TPP is wrong.