Reid Publicly Opposes Fast-Track Authority for Obama
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 01:45:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Reid Publicly Opposes Fast-Track Authority for Obama
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Reid Publicly Opposes Fast-Track Authority for Obama  (Read 1465 times)
Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin
Runeghost
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,367


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 30, 2014, 08:26:46 AM »

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140129-710760.html

This appears to mean that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be dead in the water at least until after the mid-terms.
Logged
Grumpier Than Uncle Joe
GM3PRP
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,081
Greece
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2014, 08:48:01 AM »

Reid is sometimes Obama's worst enemy.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2014, 10:29:38 AM »

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20140129-710760.html

This appears to mean that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will be dead in the water at least until after the mid-terms.

Good.
Logged
Snowstalker Mk. II
Snowstalker
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,414
Palestinian Territory, Occupied


Political Matrix
E: -7.10, S: -4.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2014, 10:40:02 AM »

Congress continues to be like a broken clock. Hopefully Obama's imperialist trade pact will die silently.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2014, 10:44:22 AM »

Good.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2014, 07:10:17 PM »

Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2014, 07:52:58 PM »

Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2014, 08:04:31 PM »

This is great news!
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,893


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 30, 2014, 08:43:03 PM »

Awful policy. A good reason to put the Republicans in charge of the Senate.
Logged
H. Ross Peron
General Mung Beans
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,406
Korea, Republic of


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: -1.91

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 30, 2014, 09:47:10 PM »

While I'm usually supportive of free trade, I'm starting to be sceptical of some of the provisions of the TPP, so I suppose this is a good thing.
Logged
Warren 4 Secretary of Everything
Clinton1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,203
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2014, 03:18:27 AM »

Awful policy. A good reason to put the Republicans in charge of the Senate.
So the reason for putting Republicans in the majority is that Reid is blocking a law that you want blocked?
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,665
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2014, 11:55:23 AM »

While I'm usually supportive of free trade, I'm starting to be sceptical of some of the provisions of the TPP, so I suppose this is a good thing.

This is type of legislation is required for US involvement in pretty much any multilateral trade deal in the future, and its absence can make bilateral trade deals more difficult.  I like the idea of more oversight by the Senate, but I'm not sure how it can be practical here.  If the agreement isn't something the Senate can support in the end they can still vote it down.
Logged
Dereich
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,893


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2014, 01:47:36 PM »

Awful policy. A good reason to put the Republicans in charge of the Senate.
So the reason for putting Republicans in the majority is that Reid is blocking a law that you want blocked?

Reed is blocking a law I want PASSED. The Republicans are fine giving the President fast track authority.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 02, 2014, 09:02:01 PM »

Fast track is clearly unconstitutional.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,234
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 02, 2014, 09:28:50 PM »

Awesome!
Logged
RogueBeaver
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,058
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 02, 2014, 09:30:13 PM »

Kerry expressed optimism that Reid will relent. Regardless, Reid is still awful.
Logged
Zioneer
PioneerProgress
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,451
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2014, 10:05:33 PM »

I've heard some negative things about the TPP, so I'm leaning towards this being a good thing.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2014, 11:12:54 PM »


It's perfectly constitutional. 
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
All fast track does is establish a rule to be used for consideration of a trade deal negotiated by the executive branch.  Congress still needs to vote to accept it in order for it to become law.  Now if the trade deal would become law unless Congress voted to reject it, then that would be unconstitutional, but that is not what fast-track trade authority confers.  All fast-track does is stipulate that when Congress considers the deal the executive has negotiated, it will give it a simple up or down vote without any amendments being considered.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2014, 11:24:57 PM »


It's perfectly constitutional. 
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
All fast track does is establish a rule to be used for consideration of a trade deal negotiated by the executive branch.  Congress still needs to vote to accept it in order for it to become law.  Now if the trade deal would become law unless Congress voted to reject it, then that would be unconstitutional, but that is not what fast-track trade authority confers.  All fast-track does is stipulate that when Congress considers the deal the executive has negotiated, it will give it a simple up or down vote without any amendments being considered.

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;
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2014, 11:42:40 PM »

The most recent Fast Track bill, the 2002 one, which has since expired had 34 Senators vote against it. A treaty with over 1/3rds of Senators voting against it is clearly not valid. Hopefully SCOTUS wakes the hell up and throws out everything passed under fast track as unconstitutional.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2014, 01:07:42 AM »


It's perfectly constitutional. 
Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.
All fast track does is establish a rule to be used for consideration of a trade deal negotiated by the executive branch.  Congress still needs to vote to accept it in order for it to become law.  Now if the trade deal would become law unless Congress voted to reject it, then that would be unconstitutional, but that is not what fast-track trade authority confers.  All fast-track does is stipulate that when Congress considers the deal the executive has negotiated, it will give it a simple up or down vote without any amendments being considered.

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;

So?  Fast-track authority doesn't impinge on that clause.  It still takes two-thirds of the senate to approve a treaty.  Of course the rule under which a the treaty will be considered is still subject to the usual majority approval of the Senate, which is why it only takes a majority of the Senators present to give Senate approval for fast-track.  Also, it is well-established that treaties often include provisions that are not self-enabling, especially if they require money to be spent from the public fisc.  Hence the legislation needed to make a treaty work requires the usual bicameral majority in both houses. That's why the House also is involved in the granting of fast-track.

The most recent Fast Track bill, the 2002 one, which has since expired had 34 Senators vote against it. A treaty with over 1/3rds of Senators voting against it is clearly not valid. Hopefully SCOTUS wakes the hell up and throws out everything passed under fast track as unconstitutional.

As I pointed out, fast-track authority is NOT a treaty.  It is a legislative rule for the consideration of a diplomatic agreement by Congress.  As such the rule only requires the usual majority to pass. If a portion of the agreement is a treaty, then when the vote is later taken on the negotiated agreement that part still requires a two-third vote of the Senate alone.  If a portion is ordinary legislation, then it still requires a majority vote of both houses.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.052 seconds with 12 queries.