This week, we'll see Congress vote on three so-called "trade agreements." Did you ever wonder why they call them "trade agreements"? So that they don't have to call them what they actually are -- treaties.
Under our Constitution, a "Bill" requires the approval of a majority of both Houses of Congress and the president's assent, or an override of the president's veto. But under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, a "Treaty" requires "the Advice and Consent of the Senate ... provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
The Powers That Be know that these "trade agreements" couldn't get the support of two-thirds of the Senate. In fact, they probably couldn't get past a filibuster. So they just renamed them. They're not treaties, they're just "trade agreements."
But they sure look like treaties, don't they? They are agreements between our government and a foreign government. That's a treaty.
If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck ... and it quacks ... it's a duck.
But they don't care. They can't get the two-thirds that they need in the Senate, so they'll just pretend that they don't need it.
And the "fast track" treatment of these "trade agreements," which thankfully expired in 2007? Also unconstitutional. That's one Congress (the 93rd Congress, for those who are keeping score) purporting to dictate procedures and rules to subsequent Congresses. You can't do that, according to Article I, Section 5 of the aforesaid U.S. Constitution.
So here we are in this mad rush to serve Mammon, not only shoveling jobs overseas, but trampling on our Constitution while we do it.
I hope that when the Panama, Colombia and South Korea "trade agreements" come before the House and the Senate this week, at least one Member of Congress (Dennis Kucinich, maybe? Ron Paul, maybe?) has the guts to stand up and say, "point of order, for the Chair. These bills are not properly before the House, and they require they concurrence of two-thirds of the Senate. I REQUEST A RULING BY THE CHAIR."
Let's see what the Parliamentarians say. If they end the charade, then it's over. And if they go along with the charade, then let's have a vote.
I just hope that if such a vote does take place, that every Member of Congress remembers that he or she swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Not the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Courage,
Alan Grayson
Follow Alan Grayson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/alangrayson
Congress takes up China, free trade, jobs bills - Yahoo! News
Congress takes up China, free trade, jobs bills - Yahoo! Finance
Congress Takes up China, Free Trade, Jobs Bills - ABC News
Free Trade Agreements: Congress, Obama Administration Break ...
Thanks.
The term "Free Trade" is just a shorter way of saying "The Agreement In which we FREEly TRADE away all our rights and privileges as a sovereign nation so as to empower a foreign entity and do so under the guise of promoting open markets".
You rock and it stinks you're not still in Congress holding the crooks accountable!
Does anyone in Congress know what these words mean?
We must have a new party.
Thanks Mr. Grayson, for defining these things as what they are, and what they aren't, as in, they're not Constitutional, whatever their other attractions.
Yes, it is a fakery. We will not be gaining jobs from these countries.
-Colombia ---their illicit transactions range from honest business people ducking the IRS to outright drug-trafficking gangsters.
-Korea------ is basically a NAFTA clone. “Also the Korea lease land in the zone that is in the North Korea area in order to unitized the cheap north Korea labor. So, basely if we buy are car that is imported from Korea we are buying auto produced in communist North Korea”. Korea has serious automobile and electronics industries, among others, and aggressive industrial policies to target American industries for displacement.
-Panama --- is one of the worst countries in the Western Hemisphere for both money laundering and tax evasion.
No, can not see that these “Free- Trade” agreements benefit America, they just speed up the process to finalize the “United States of the Banana Republic’.
I can see how it benefits the multinational corporations (oligarchy).
Follow the money.
By 2009 manufacturing jobs had dropped to 11,051,000, a loss of about 9 million jobs (while total jobs rose significantly over the same period. The negative economic effect of the transition from high paying manufacturing jobs to lower paying service jobs was masked by "borrowing" the difference through trade deficits. Today's trade deficit in goods is running at about $700,000,000,000 / year.
The trade deficits over that period, in turn, were largely responsible for funding our federal budget deficits - all those dollars had to be invested in dollar denominated investments and the easiest and safest investment was US Treasury Notes and Bonds.
And it all goes back to Free Trade...
P.S. I know many liberals will disagree and attack this comment with the idea that the government needs to regulate trade for a "common good." Sorry, it will end up just as disastrous as the present situation. Regulations give short term benefits to a few groups, but hurt our nation in the long run.
this country was founded on protectionism - Founder Hamilton was a huge propronent of encouraging domestic manufacturing and discouraging importation
Abraham Lincoln started the American System in full force. He also created money by directly spending it into the economy, no Federal Reserve no interest on the National Debt, no National Debt.