Third Party & Independents Archives

Why Is This A Controversy?

Trade in Services Agreement


It’s not an abdication of power when you consider the 3 types of trade agreements (treaties) the president can negotiate.



There's an actual treaty between 2 parties neither can break. This power is defined in the treaty clause of the constitution whereas the President negotiates the treaty and is sole negotiator. The congress confirms that treaty, word for word, with a 2/3 majority.

There are also agreements that one party can discontinue or ignore. Congress can pass a law stating 10 million dollars will be spent in the country of Mexico. Congress can also repeal it. Congress and the people must abide by this law, but Mexico does not. Mexico is under no obligation to sell anything to congress.

The president can also make this same agreement. The president can say his administration will take responsibility for the 10 million and if Mexico wants it? Fine. If the President doesn't pay up? Fine, as well.

The first example is hardcoded into the constitution. It's called the treaty clause. We have a treaty with Great Britian (England). If the president decide to renegotiate that treaty with Great Britian he could do so at his leasure. For those negotiations to be a binding agreement the congess must approve them, word for word, by a 2/3 majority.

The second example is a binding agreement made by congress and signed by the president. It is law, and is treated the same way any law is treated.

The third example is a full faith and credit agreement made by the president himself. The congress is not compelled to support it.


What is being discussed here, TISA, is an agreement in the making using the third example. This country is not negotiating a treaty with another country. Congress is not passing a law to assure this country's compliance to an agreement. President Obama is acting on his own authority as President to negotiate an agreement between 2 or more parties.

That's his job. I say let him do it and stop cluttering up the news cycle with this misleading rhetoric. Congress can determine whether this agreement is worthy of the second example treatment, as it is their job to do, by passing a law.

However, under no circumstances should this agreement be seen as having the merit of the first example.

Posted by Weary_Willie at June 4, 2015 9:18 PM
Comments
Comment #395839

Weary, thanks my friend for bringing this issue up, I wasn’t aware of this secretive trade agreement prior to your post. To answer your question “Why is this a controversy” I would say first of all because it is so secretive and secondly the potential for the further “globalization”(and I don’t mean that in a good way) of our sovereignty and the loss of the nations national resources to the richest corporations for little gain by we the people.

It seems the current rash of secretive trade agreements (the TPP, the TIPP and now TISA) will do as the previous NAFTA and others did suck more decent paying jobs out of the country, take away the ability of local government to make and enforce laws, and put the laws and regulations in the hands of the WTO.

Is this what conservatives want? IMHO I think their is good reason for controversy. These agreements need to work for the benefit of all people and so far that hasn’t been the case. We lost many jobs to China and other countries to the point where the citizens of China wear masks outside (to fend off the pollution that results from lax regulations). Our choice was and is jobs or pollution under these trade agreements. The lack of labor laws has made this a race to the bottom with only a few in the world sharing in the gains. SO yes the trade agreements are controversial especially when they are so secretive to so many of us.

As it stands right now it seems the winners of these trade agreements are those with the “croniest” of crony capitalism systems, the most restrictive of rulers, the worst of air and water pollution and the most violent of law enforcement. Is this what we want for the future?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 6, 2015 11:45 AM
Comment #395841

When I posted this I was not aware the text of the agreement was locked away in a secret room where only some people had to sign in to read it. It seems not too many of our representatives even made the effort.

It’s strange, to say the least, the secrecy enveloping this agreement. What are they hiding? They have to be hiding something for it to be a secret. Why isn’t Obama proud of this achievement instead of hiding it away in a locked room?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 7, 2015 2:14 AM
Comment #395843

Weary, this is bigger than Obama, if you want a seat at the table you have to agree to the terms of secrecy. One of the main principles of the WTO is supposed to be transparency so I think they need to be asked why these agreements are so secretive if their principles are violated in doing so.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 7, 2015 6:57 PM
Comment #395845

The American people have the responsibility of rejecting this agreement on the secrecy issue alone.
As I said in the post, there are three types of agreements. This one should not be considered a treaty. This agreement should not be enforced by law because of the secrecy issue. It should be considered dead when Obama leaves office if he takes it upon himself to agree to it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 8, 2015 12:58 PM
Comment #395847

Weary you must mean our elected representatives in Congress. Good luck with that. They all need lots of money to get reelected and that comes from those that benefit from the secretive trade laws.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 9, 2015 1:50 AM
Comment #395851

Surely, we can all remember the “NAU” and inherit secrecy. Supporting corporations is the one area where demreps act in unison.

Otherwise, - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at June 10, 2015 2:42 PM
Comment #395852

I remember when the elders, sitting around the campfire, used to tell a fable about when a bunch of people got tired of corporations and government working against their best interests. The story goes on about how they just didn’t put up with it any longer and started destroying stuff.

After a while they finally got their way and the corporations were considered an evil to be held on a very short leash. They said corporations were tools. They certainly didn’t consider either a corporation or a government to be a person.

It is said those people created the most free and the most prosperous nation in the history of the world.

Too bad it’s just fiction! How could any nation be free and great without corporations and government leading the way?

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 10, 2015 10:25 PM
Comment #395861

what about ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’?

What about article V convention? Is they is, or is they not is, sworn to carry out the Constitution?

Where, in the history of the court, is there a case file on the hearings for corporate personhood law?

Now, that is some real fiction.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at June 11, 2015 3:52 PM
Comment #395862

Why Roy it is self evident isn’t it? I’m sure if you ask most conservatives or libertarian corporate personhood is just as an inalienable right as breathing. Just like money is free speech. Yet we are told it is our government that is the problem.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 11, 2015 5:11 PM
Comment #395864

I claim both the conservative and the libertarian mantle and I disagree with you on corporate personhood, j2t2. Money is free speech, but it has to be your money, not a corporation’s money.

Posted by: Weary Willie at June 11, 2015 9:11 PM
Post a comment