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

jazzimov

(1,456 posts)
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 09:34 PM Apr 2015

NAFTA, "Fast Track", and the TPP

Most of what NAFTA is blamed for is the result of other economic factors. Of course, it has done what it was supposed to do, either. Altogether, the correct reaction to NAFTA is;

meh.

The TPA or "Fast Track Authority" means that Congress can't add or subtract from the negotiated treaty (which makes sense, since they didn't negotiate it) and that Congress must have an up or down vote on the treaty within a certain time period. Actually, I wish that ALL bills had those restrictions! But if a treaty is a bad deal, then Congress can simply vote it down. That's the deal with the TPA.

As for the TPP - I'm not particularly happy that it is being negotiated "behind closed doors", although I can see how that would speed things up since the "leaked" details have been so disruptive. But, it hasn't been finished yet! Once it is finished, then it has to go before Congress whether the TPA is passed or not. At that time, the details will be made public.

I will let you know whether I support it or not once it's finished. But right now, my response is;

meh.

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NAFTA, "Fast Track", and the TPP (Original Post) jazzimov Apr 2015 OP
Technically, those trade agreements are unconstitutional treaties meow2u3 Apr 2015 #1
Technically, these are "agreements" not "treaties" jazzimov Apr 2015 #2
The PTB seem to treat them like treaties meow2u3 Apr 2015 #3

meow2u3

(24,772 posts)
1. Technically, those trade agreements are unconstitutional treaties
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:00 PM
Apr 2015

Treaties are supposed to be ratified with a 2/3 vote in the Senate, according to the Constitution. If Congress passes such a FTA, it's no more than a statute.

I wish someone would challenge these FTAs in court on those grounds.

jazzimov

(1,456 posts)
2. Technically, these are "agreements" not "treaties"
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:20 PM
Apr 2015

as Thomas Jefferson said:

It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

meow2u3

(24,772 posts)
3. The PTB seem to treat them like treaties
Sat Apr 25, 2015, 10:22 PM
Apr 2015

Can't an agreement be nullified at any time if one or more parties don't live up to their end?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NAFTA, "Fast Track&q...