Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: from Martin O'Malley, re: TPP [View all]Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)6. Interesting...
Your statement that the Fast Track bill "ALLOWS congress to vote it up, or down." seems to imply that Congress would not have the constitutional authority to vote on "trade agreements" if not for this bill (that is, your statement seems to imply that such an agreement could be done by executive authority without Congressional action).
If that is what is indeed what is contended, there are several problems with this:
(1.) From what we know about the negotiations, this involves issues of overriding numerous areas of law (including but not limited to labor law, environmental law, intellectual property law, safety regulation) regulated by federal, state, and local governmental entities, and removing the ability of federal, state, and municipal courts from enforcing their constitutionally passed laws, subjecting federal, state, and local governmental entities to being sued in an "Investor State Dispute Resolution" tribunal which is exempt from judicial appeal. Are you suggesting that presidential executive authority includes the authority to override federal and state labor, environmental, intellectual property, safety, and other laws by making a "trade" agreement based on executive authority?
(2.) If it is to be argued that Congress does not constitutionally possess the authority to be "allowed" to vote on a "trade agreement", then this bill would not change that, as (if that were true) Congress would not have the ability to grant itself the authority to ""allow Congress to vote it up, or down." (Since. if Congress had no such authority constitutionally, it would require a constitutional amendment to "allow Congress to vote it up or down."
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
58 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I SAID he supported Free Trade...and backed it up...much to your dismay..
VanillaRhapsody
Apr 2015
#49
At least reading the OP here he isn't saying he is pro or con TPP. What he is saying is that this
still_one
Apr 2015
#53
You said that in every thread about O'Malley and you have been told over and over that
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#34
Is than worse that being for it before she is still for it, like Clinton? nm
rhett o rick
Apr 2015
#47
I do. We opposed it, strenuously, so .... but yeah, we absolutely hated it back then.
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#44
Same thing, Trade. Dems were furious, he was trying to pull something, etc etc. Which
sabrina 1
Apr 2015
#46
"Chasing cheaper labor abroad will not help us build a stronger economy here at home." - O'Malley
FSogol
Apr 2015
#8
They don't know what their voting for. I will never support anyone who VOTES IN THE BLIND. nt
Snotcicles
Apr 2015
#20