Treaties, Trade Agreements and Government by the People

Here is a nice primer with history on trade agreements in the US.

This fight around TPP is ongoing with no easy victory for the PEOPLE in sight.

The language used by 'those in the know' is obtuse, then their is the secrecry, and then there are the 'odd bedfellows' (odd is not the right word) of President Obama and Republican Leadership.

Anyhow:

By the late 19th century Congress realized it was far too cumbersome to require a Congressional vote to change individual tariffs, so they delegated to the President the authority to use tariffs as a flexible tool in the exercise of foreign policy.

- See more at: www.iatp.org...

...

In 1974 Congress made clear it thought otherwise.

That year Congress acquiesced to a dramatic reduction in its and by extension the citizenry’s authority over trade rules.

Under the new procedure the President was allowed to unilaterally negotiate the final terms of a trade agreement. He would then present the final agreement to Congress, which would be unable to change it in any way and would have a limited time for debate. Instead of requiring ratification by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, trade pacts would require only a simple majority from both chambers.

...

The NAFTA vote was close: 234-200.

Three-quarters of Democrats voting against while 80 percent of Republicans voted in favor.

The ratification process of NAFTA was challenged in federal courts, but the courts rejected the challenge, ruling in essence that Congress can at its discretion decide when a treaty is not a treaty and can make the process for ratification as undemocratic as it sees fit.

....

And perhaps most of all we are furious about fast track’s foreclosure of extensive and intensive debate on a complex document of far reaching consequence.

If fast track fails the President can still submit a trade bill.

And we can then launch a much needed and long overdue national conversation about the benefits and limitations of trade and the dangers of ceding sovereignty to a new international constitution whose goal is to limit democracy and expand corpocracy.

a reply to: FyreByrd

It does always appear to be a Democratic administration along with a Republican Congress that gets these so-called FTAs pushed through.

a reply to: FyreByrd

My vision of a society where 'we the people rule' is one where 'we the people' are the "Upper House' where the power of govt to make laws and take unilateral action that reduces peoples rights, privacy and choices, is severely limited.

Where important laws such as Obama care and the TPP could not become law until 'we the people' had given our assent to it through a referendum. Similarly, no govt could send troops into a theater of war without the peoples permission through a referendum.

It is not impossible to establish a criteria for determining which laws and international agreements cannot become law until they have been passed by 'we the people' in a referendum.

The current arrangements whereby a few hundred people rule the xyz millions, suites TPTB extremely well as they only have to control a few hundred by various means in order to control the xxyz millsions.