"Free Trade" Fakery

[Alan Grayson]

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

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[ret5hd]

2. I admire your knowledge, integrity and actions, Mr. Grayson.

Please run again.

[PDJane]

3. he is quite correct....

they are treaties to take American jobs overseas; offshoring treaties, not free trade agreementshel

It doesn't help the economy, and it's useless to pretend otherwise.

[DirkGently]

4. Excellent points. +++

[Arctic Dave]

5. THANK YOU!

Finally someone calls a duck, a duck. They were always an end run around the rules established to keep from giving too much power to too few poeple.

"Free Trade Agreements" have been one of the biggest destroyers of the US manufacturing powerbase since they were put into place.

Why ANYONE would think that signing on to more of these is a good idea is insane.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. Well said, Mr. Grayson.

You are providing us with an incredibly clear look into the inner workings of "our" government.

Thank you!

[starroute]

7. And the reference to the Chamber of Commerce is not accidental

The Chamber has been pushing these agreements hard, both here and through its overseas subsidiaries (the AmChams). It's an aspect of their agenda that could use more scrutiny than it's generally gotten.

[pscot]

8. Why has there never been a court challenge

based on the constitutional issues? Great post, by the way.

[chill_wind]

9. K & R and thank you.

[Michigan-Arizona]

10. K&R Thank you very much n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

11. You're a DU member! I LOVE YOU!

Please run for President! We need someone like you in the WH....badly! Welcome to DU! I post your emails here all the time! I just posted this one here too. :)

[mod mom]

12. loved you on Maher! keep up the good fight!

:yourock:

[diane in sf]

13. Thankyou for calling out this kind of stuff--I'll keep sending contributions :-)

[Uncle Joe]

14. That's what it says here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/treaty

trea·ty   /ˈtriti/ Show Spelled Show IPA

noun, plural -ties.

1. a formal agreement between two or more states in reference to peace, alliance, commerce, or other international relations.

(snip)

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Alan Grayson.

[Demeter]

15. Bringing back the rule of law, one rule at a time

not sure it's going to work, but it's worth a try. FDR said he'd try everything, and keep doing whatever worked....

[midnight]

16. Nice explanation about the trickery afoot. But because these bills are not properly

before the House, why do you suggest they be voted upon? Thanks..

[Bake]

17. Well said, sir!

:hi:

Bake

[Odin2005]

18. Thank you, Alan!

:yourock:

[Quantess]

19. Thanks for posting!

Too late to recommend.

[frylock]

20. kick

[Iwillnevergiveup]

21. YOU are the one with courage, Rep. Grayson

and you inspire us. Love seeing you on the teevee - your appearance on Bill Maher last week was classic, and I hope it pulled in tons of money for your campaign.

Smart, funny Congressman with guts? Yeah, we need more like you!

:applause: