This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
How The Media Deceive The Public About "Fast Track" And The "Trade Bills"
Submitted by Eric Zeusse,
The way that “Fast Track” is described to the American public is as an alternative method for the Senate to handle “Trade Bills” (TPP & TTIP) that the President presents to the Senate for their approval; and this alternative method is said to be one in which “no amendments are permitted, and there will be a straight up-or-down vote on the bill."
But, in fact, the “Fast Track” method is actually to require only 50 Senators to vote “Yea” in order for the measure to be approved by the Senate, whereas the method that is described and required in (Section 2 of) the U.S. Constitution is that the President “shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” That’s not 50 Senators; it’s 67 Senators, that the Constitution requires.
In other words: “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority” (which was invented by the imperial President Richard Nixon in 1974, in order to advance his goal of a dictatorial Executive, that the Presidency would become a dictatorship) lowers the Constitutionally required approval from 67 Senators down to only 50 Senators.
This two-thirds rule is set forth in the Constitution in order to make especially difficult the passing-into-law of any treaty that the United States will have with any foreign country. The same two-thirds requirement is set forth for amending the Constitution, except that that’s a two-thirds requirement in both the House and the Senate: it can be done “by either: two-thirds (supermajority) of both the Senate and the House of Representatives …; or by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.”
Getting two-thirds of either house of Congress to vote for a bill is rare and difficult, but it has happened 27 times, because the entire process was public, and because there was widespread support of each Amendment.
By contrast: Obama’s proposed trade treaties are still secret.
The difference between 50 Senators versus 67 Senators is, essentially, the difference between a treaty that is publicly discussed and widely acceptable to the American public (the people, after all, who voted for those members of Congress); versus a secret treaty that will be widely unacceptable to the American public when the America public will become informed of its contents, which won’t be until years after the treaty has already gone into effect.
This is the reason why only a tiny fraction of authentic “trade bills” even need “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority” in order to pass; most trade bills are passed in the normal way. A President doesn’t ask for “Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority” unless he is going to be presenting to the Congress a treaty that is so horrible for the American people that only few members of either the House or the Senate would vote for it — the bill needs “Fast Track” in order for it to be able to pass.
What types of “Trade Bills” are these?
They are treaties in which only a tiny fraction of the treaty actually has to do with “Trade,” or with tariffs and other legal favoritisms toward one nation as opposed to another. In other words: They’re legislation to cede our national sovereignty to international corporations. Issues of tariffs and other “trade” disputes between nations are tacked onto these multinational treaties in order to be able to fool the public into thinking that all that’s at issue is “trade.”
Now, it’s true that “Fast Track” does also eliminate the ability of members of the Senate to propose an amendment to the treaty that the President is presenting for their approval. But that’s a relatively minor feature of “Fast Track,” which was included in the concept in order for “Fast Track” to be able to be described by politicians and by the ‘news’ media as being a minor matter — no “big deal,” no ceding of sovereignty to international corporations.
It’s not a minor matter; it’s the biggest matter in President Obama’s entire Presidency: it’s about scandalously bad international treaties with many nations at once, in which international corporations (that is, the hundred or so individuals who own the controlling interests in them) will be handed our national and democratic soverieignty over labor rights, consumer rights, environmental rights, and investors’ rights — it’s every way that those billionaires can think of to pass off onto the public the harms that they do while keeping for themselves all the benefits of the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose game they’re playing with the U.S. public and that of every other signatory nation. It’s international fascism, not merely fascism of the local type.
And that’s what we’ve now got.
* * *
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.
»
- 14156 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The interests of the media and the interests of the people are mutually exclusive.
But but but but .... I thought BarryO was an anti-colonialist Kenyan socialist Marxist out to screw the white man. How can he be serving the interests of corporations? It's not possible. This author must be totally wrong.
Yes, As a member of the true left I have found it so much fun by people here and and the lame stream liberal press to name him that. the pothuswel retire with millions but he will not be able to play golf on the best courese of the world.
Fast Track Is A Complete And Total Fraud
AIPAC-backed amendments add to trade bill turmoil
Michael Shapiro, an aide to Roskam, called the concern about the amendments “empty criticism by fringe organizations attempting to derail overwhelmingly bipartisan efforts to curb the BDS movement against Israel.” In particular he blasted Jewish Voice for Peace as an anti-Israel group, and said that “discriminatory boycotts against Israeli companies or U.S. companies that do business in Israel are illegitimate and immoral.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/trade-bill-israel-aipac-117815.htm...
When global corporations on 90% of the media, global corporations control the discussion.
Did you just say liberal press? Bhwa ha ha ha. I just watched a documentary on CNN about building 7! Not
Why is it every time I hear about some "alternate" way of doing things I can never find it in the Constitution?
What amazes me is that there seems to be an ENDLESS number of ways of "legally" bypassing what was written in the Constitution. That moldy old document is so riddled with holes it's just about worthless to read and understand it any more. It means nothing.
If somebody could tell me what's left between where we are and "The President decides everything since he won the last election" I'm all ears.
Fast Track is the insidious legislative device that authorizes a president to go negotiate trade scams like NAFTA
If I click on that link, will I learn how to earn $74 an hour getting lapdances?
Barry is the biggest con man we have ever had in the office of the president and his Marxist ideology is now front and center to destroying what is left of his last two years of any semblance of free market capitalism.
The establishment media are bought and paid for by the corporate fascists, thrusting their agenda and misinformation upon the rest of us. But alas, nothing these rat bastards say can corrupt and sway the mind of an enlightened individual.
The problem is still the unenlightened sheepish, crowd pleasing, herd following, apathetic, ignorant, and stupid people who fall for this...and this is what TPTB rely on.
"secret legislation" makes a mockery of representative government.
If it hasn't been made available for constituents to provide comment and feedback to their congressman/senator-no reasonable representation exists.
Logically that representative's vote is as it never existed
gubbermint works for the maggots. the people are irrelevant.
Obama put America on the 'Fast Track' to Hell.............
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
The TPP creates the first regional supranational government run by corporations and bankers. The TIPP (Atlantic region) is next.
For everyone who worries about the so-called NWO, this is how it is done.
none dare call it treason?
Unless they don't mind being labeled a racist.
Thats razzzist-terrorist-subversive to you fella...lol.
Someone who needs the kindly, magnificent federal governments full attention and surveillance 24/7/365 to learn their habits and interests so at some point they can be siezed at a government road block, errr, ummm, "Public Safety Checkpoint" and carted off to a re-education camp.
For da good of da Fadderland ;-)
F-A-S-T T-R-A-C-K: 50 'gifts' to 50 senators and BAM you've passed a trade bill.
This would be easily defeated with 51 bullets.
Buchanan To WSJ: It Wasn’t Patriots Who Led GOP, America To Disaster–It Was You!
How Obama Radically Transformed America’s Patent System
The TPP Managed Trade Deal And The Danger Of Informal Immigration Promises: More Evidence
By Peter Brimelow, former Editor, Forbes Magazine on May 19, 2015, 11:45 pm
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell:"the Senate will finish its work on trade this week" whatever the voters want.
Mugging Americans: ObamaCare’s Jonathan Gruber And Norbert Schlei Of The 1965 Immigration Act
Norbert Schlei Interview
McConnell and Bonner and traitors and are totally complicit
Das is fantastisch.
http://forayintothemarket.com/?p=103
"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."
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof..."
This means all law and treaties must be made in pursuance of the Constitution. The treaty or law cannot usurp the constitution.This is where most treaties and law fail. A treaty or law cannot have supremacy over the constitution. By off shoring constitutional authority, which is what they are basically doing, they are bypassing the constitution, which is unconstitutional...
That said, they will pass this treaty regardless...
Let's twist the theme a bit here?,.. from the economy to war which basically always falls in tamden?
It's the economy stupid?
Going back in tyme to LBJ and with the MSM total unbiased backing of a 'no-see-em'... a absolutely ?known?unknown?, swearing on his stepmom's grave holding a Torah, that the attacks on the Maddox and Turner Joy in the 'Gulf of Tonkin' were provoked by the communist. A WAR we go!, and, it's never slowed down! Has it?
Need moar money for war, or war for moar money. Confused? It's a designed confusion like a 'constructed ambiguity kinda thingy'?
Richard Nixon gave birth to every neo-con artist during the 20th century, and now its generational in the 21st century.
Cheney, Bush, Rehnquist, Wolfowitz, Libby, Perle, Rumsfeld, etel... that have taken it upon themselves to destroy the integrity of the MSM by design! Why? Figure it out,... then get back to propaganda 101?!? Think of putting a 'FOX' in the henhouse, where the 'cock-fights' turn into 'Capon Orgies?'?
Perhaps these links will enlighten the myopic`abstract Picasso 3rd-eye in awe of us... this freudian passage to no-where `Atlantist`landhoe?!?
"Project for the New Century (PNAC)" http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Project-for-the-New-Century
"The Office of Special Plans (OSP)" *[NGAO]7/03/ 'Northern Gulf Affairs Office'* http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office-of-Special-Plans Note: updated 2/11/04
"Ahmad Chalabi' :: The Man that would[?] replicate?replace Saddam?!?, an Iranian Spy outed by the CIA? WTF! http://rotten.com/library/bio/misc/ahmed-chalabi/
The great depression was brought about by foolish tarriffs? All the great wars ended depressions. In fact most depressions are created by trade, where the rental colony can't keep-up appearances. But like a isolated cancer it goes regional then full blossom.
jmo
Ps. This TPP is a dollar late and a yuan short...
why make expensive new Treaties if you never keep them in the first place, unless it is a total Fraud meant to transfer wealth and power to the few Wealthy.
RENUNCIATION OF WAR
RENUNCIATION OF WAR^
Treaty providing for the renunciation of war as
an instrument of national policy.
Signed at Paris August 27, 1928.
Entered into force July 24, 1929.
46 Stat. 2343; TS 796; 2 Bevans 732; 94 LNTS 57.
Parties (I cut down the list)
Afghanistan
Albania
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Croatia
Cuba
Ecuador
Egypt
Greece
Guatemala
Honduras
India
Iran
Iraq
Mexico
Nicaragua
Thailand
Turkey
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
United Kingdom
United States
Venezuela
Yugoslavia
Indeed
excellent data mining
thanks
EDIT: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Special_Plans
Edit@: PNAC 'Plug into Search Box ... lots of invaluable data
jmo
“Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority” (which was invented by the imperial President Richard Nixon in 1974, in order to advance his goal of a dictatorial Executive, that the Presidency would become a dictatorship) lowers the Constitutionally required approval from 67 Senators down to only 50 Senators.
-----
Hey, if someone can change the constitution just by "declaring it so"... then now is my turn. Here goes...
The federal government is hereby disbanded, and any actions taken by so-called members of the federal government since inception are hereby null, void, invalid and cause for summary extermination.
-----
Okay, yeah, true... "government" is just a fiction, as is any "nation". But seriously! How can anyone continue to have even slightly serious conversations about any of this when such conversations include blatant self-contradictions?
I mean, seriously! If Nixon can unilaterally reduce 67% to 50%, then Obama can unilaterally increase 67% to 99% to over-ride his vetos. Why do humans take things seriously that are utter and complete absurdity?
Since when can anyone just "invent" whatever they want, and expect others to do anything but laugh out loud... then open fire?
Obama is Cheney's boy... Fuck 'the Publc'...
Treason at the puppet show - http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN./qZg9gRdMIuhsQBE8UfsBg&w=300&h=300&c=0&...
This tpp free trade bill is a Trojan Horse. Obama knows if passed and implemented that it will crash the American economy to the likes we have never seen before. Confidence in free market capitalism will be gone. Then the government will swoop in and nationalize everything.
This Obama's grand plan, and GOP politicians are too stupid to stop him.
now, I am as populist as they come...I hate the big corporations and the plutocrats...
up till now I have been firmly against the TPP.
But from what I am hearing now and what I hear on this thread, maybe the TPP is good.
Sounds like it bypasses the constitution and the american govt in some cases.
Let me tell you something--the constitution is NOT your friend.
The constitution was created by the rich and for the rich.
The american fed govt structure was created to promote gridlock.
If this TPP will damage the constitution then I am all for it.
The constitution is your enemy.
you are a fool and a liar. the Constitution puts the brakes on an out of co trol gov-which iswhy it is ignored by TPTB today.
this trade deal is 0baMaos marxist wet dream come true and should be fast tracked to the dumpster asap.
The constitution is your enemy? Care to explain that statement because that one is way out there?
To: Senator Elizabeth Warren
From: John-Henry Hill, M.D. JohnHenryHill@Yahoo.com
Date: May 12, 2015
Subject: Make Public the Full & Final Version Trans-Pacific (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic Treaties
Dear Senator Warren, May 12, 2015
Like many Americans, I have been closely following the debates regarding the Trans-Pacific (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic ”free-trade” treaties. However, the contents of these treaties is being kept SECRET from the public. Indeed, even House members are NOT allowed to view these treaties. And Senators are NOT provided with FULL COPIES of these treaties, but instead are required to read them small portions in a sealed room; can retain NO notes they write regarding the Treaties; and can NOT even discuss the contents of the treaties!
How can Senate and House members be expected to vote on treaties which they have NOT been allowed to study in detail and discuss with other members and outside specialists? However, NOT knowing ANYTHING regarding the contents of these treaties, the most immediate issue for the public appears to be whether to grant President so-called “fast-track” authority, in which no amendments or even any debate will be allowed in the Senate.
“If the president is so confident it's a good deal, he should declassify the text and let people see it before asking Congress to tie its hands on fixing it," Warren said in the interview with the Plum Line blog. “Senator Warren hits back at Obama in Pacific Rim trade fight” by Emily Stephenson (Reuters) of May 11, 2015. [ http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/11/us-trade-obama-warren-idUSKBN0NW1N020150511 ]
I agree with your position about making public the full contents of these treaties, but NOT with your arguments or tactics for doing so (e.g., that the treaties may “weaken U.S. bank rules” and so on).
The primary argument should be whether giving the President “fast-track” authority is CONSTITUTIONAL.
The Constitution of the United States of America explicitly states:
a.) Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2
“He [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;…”
b.) Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2
“Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.”
c.) Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3
The Congress shall have power … “To regulate commerce with foreign nations …”
It is clear that the Senate can create its own internal rules (Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 2), but ONLY if they do NOT conflict with the Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3 gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations …”. And Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 states, “He [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;…”.
First, the House and Senate can NOT create internal rules which violate these provisions of the Constitution. Second, the Constitution does NOT authorize the Senate to delegate any of its powers to the President, just as the President can NOT delegate to the Secretary of Agriculture the power to approve or veto a bill passed by Congress. (Ancient Maxim of Law: “A delegated power cannot be again delegated. A deputy cannot appoint a deputy.”) Finally, the Constitution does NOT allow the Senate to approve any treaties unless two thirds of the Senators present concur. Consequently, the granting of “fast-track” authority to the President regarding treaties of ANY kind is clearly a violation of the Constitution.
One further issue arises: even if the Senate approves the Trans-Pacific (TPP) and Trans-Atlantic ”free-trade” treaties, the question of the whether the House is required to fund the implementation of these treaties arises. And the answer to that question is clearly “NO”.
In short:
1.) Giving the President “fast-track” authority regarding these treaties in an unconstitutional delegation of powers reserved specifically to the Senate. Ancient Maxim of Law: “A delegated power cannot be again delegated. A deputy cannot appoint a deputy.”
2.) Before any Senator votes on any treaty or other legislation, he/she should have personal possession of a FINAL version of that treaty or legislation, with sufficient time to study and discuss with other members and any outside experts he/she desires before a vote can be scheduled.
3.) House members should also have personal possession of a FINAL version of that treaty or legislation, with sufficient time to study and discuss it.
4.) The full text of the FINAL version should also be made public, allowing them time to read and discuss it; then contact their Senators and Congressman with their concerns.
5.) Should these “free-trade” treaties pass the Senate, I expect you to vote AGAINST any funding for their implementation.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Senator Warren, you have a reputation as an excellent attorney, but I am an historian (as well as a physician-medical researcher and medical research programmer) – and this question falls into my area of expertise. My area of specialization: “The Evolution of American Law-Political History from the Colonial Period Through the American Civil War”.
A lesson from the past: The Jay Treaty of 1795
A situation not dissimilar from the current “free-trade” treaties took place in 1795 with the Jay Treaty with Britain. Under the Jay Treaty Britain, then at war with France, offered the U.S. no commercial trade preferences; could continue to “impress” American sailors into the British navy; would be subject to no tonnage or tariffs upon British ships or goods for a period of 10 years; failed to stop the seizure of American ships thought to be shipping goods to France; and allowed Britain to maintain its forts on America’s western frontier.(1) Even President Washington did not like the treaty written by Jay and kept it for four months before he could bring himself to submit it to the Senate.(2)
As with the current “free-trade” treaties, the contents of the Jay Treaty were kept secret from the public and even members of the House of Representatives as per a prior Senate resolution. The Senate debated it (unlike the “fast-track” rules) and on June 24, 1795 it was ratified by the Senate with the minimum number of votes necessary - (2/3 of the Senators present and concurring). However, Senator Mason of Virginia, in violation of the Senate’s “secrecy resolution”, gave a copy of the treaty to Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Aurora newspaper, which printed it on June 29, 1795 – five days after it had been ratified. The news spread like wildfire. (3) (4) Edmund Randolph (the only member of Washington’s cabinet opposed to the Treaty) wrote that President Washington personally gave him (Randolph) a copy of the Jay Treaty to be published following the treaty’s ratification.(5) Washington was expected to sign the Treaty immediately after ratification, but hesitated when he learned that Britain had issued a NEW order that it would continue to seize American ships thought to be carrying goods to France, as well as retain all of its western forts.(6) Randolph (falsely accused by the British Minister Hammond of accepting a bribe from the French) resigned from the cabinet. With Randolph gone, President Washington, under great pressure from the remaining cabinet members, finally signed the Treaty.(7)
The next battle came in the House in March 1796. Two issues were debated:
(a) the contents of the Treaty; and
(b) whether the House was required to appropriate money for the implementation of a treaty already ratified by the Senate and President.
Was the House independent of the Senate and President; or a mere appendage?
The provisions of the Jay Treaty had been kept secret from House members by a Senate resolution, so that House members learned of the Treaty’s contents only AFTER its ratification and subsequent publication in various newspapers. Now the House demanded the documents which would explain the negotiations resulting in the Treaty. The Senate refused. The House voted a resolution requesting such documents from President Washington. Washington issued a written refusal and instructed the House to “limit its concerns with treaties to appropriations.”(8) Although the people as a whole opposed the Jay Treaty, President Washington was still such a highly revered (almost God-like) figure that the public supported Washington’s refusal. The House approved the funds to implement the Jay Treaty. But Washington, who had never truly liked the Treaty, wrote of the public as being greatly agitated about the Treaty “in a higher degree than it has been at any period since the Revolution.”(9) Washington was correct and one of his greatest fears was a direct result of the process that resulted in the Jay Treaty: the creation of formal, organized, opposing political parties – which he believed was the major flaw in Britain’s parliamentary system. Of even greater importance were the political and economic divisions created between the industrial North and the agrarian South, which would eventually lead to the U.S. Civil War.
Notes:
(1) Samuel Flagg Bemis, “Jay’s Treaty”, (New York, 1923), 257, 259-61.
(2) Gaillard Hunt, Introduction to Bemis, “Jay’s Treaty”, xiii
(3) Gaillard Hunt et al., “The Writings of James Madison, 9 Vols.”, (New York, 1900-10)VI, 258
(4) Moncure Daniel Conway, “Omitted Chapters of History Disclosed in the Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph”, (New York and London, 1888), 295
(5) Moncure Daniel Conway, “Omitted Chapters of History Disclosed in the Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph”, (New York and London, 1888), 261
(6) The Jay Treaty prohibited such seizure of American ships, but the NEW order was based on a NEW legal argument: the “right to seize enemy property, in neutral bottoms, a course of action the legality of which in proved cases was sanctioned in the Treaty and could not be denied under international law.” Therefore, the British did not consider this new order for seizures a violation of the Treaty. Josiah Turner Newcomb, “New Light on Jay’s Treaty”, American Journal of International Law, XXVIII, (Oct, 1934), 687
(7) Irving Bent, “Edmund Randolph Not Guilty”, William and Mary Quarterly, 3d set., VII (April, 1950), 179-98
(8) March 30, 1796, Fitzpatrick, “Washington’s Writings”, XXXV, 2-5
(9) Washington to Pinckney, May 22, 1796, Fitzpatrick, “Washington’s Writings”, XXXV, 62
John-Henry Hill, M.D., Ph.D.
e-mail: JohnHenryHill@Yahoo.com
Blog: http://JohnHenryHill.Wordpress.com
This should be no surprise to anyone with any intelllect.
The Bolshvik Communist Kikes control Hollywood and the "JewsMedia"... Oh and most of the banks comprising the Central Banks...