How The Media Deceive The Public About “Fast Track” And The “Trade Bills”

Print Friendly

The way that “Fast Track” is described to the Amer­i­can pub­lic is as an alter­na­tive method for the Sen­ate to han­dle “Trade Bills” (TPP & TTIP) that the Pres­i­dent presents to the Sen­ate for their approval; and this alter­na­tive method is said to be one in which “no amend­ments are per­mit­ted, and there will be a straight up-or-down vote on the bill.”

But, in fact, the “Fast Track” method is actu­ally to require only 50 Sen­a­tors to vote “Yea” in order for the mea­sure to be approved by the Sen­ate, whereas the method that is described and required in (Sec­tion 2 of) the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion is that the Pres­i­dent “shall have the Power, by and with the Advice and Con­sent of the Sen­ate, to make treaties, pro­vided two thirds of the Sen­a­tors present con­cur.”  That’s not 50 Sen­a­tors; it’s 67 Sen­a­tors, that the Con­sti­tu­tion requires.

In other words: “Fast Track Trade Pro­mo­tion Author­ity” (which was invented by the impe­r­ial Pres­i­dent Richard Nixon in 1974, in order to advance his goal of a dic­ta­to­r­ial Exec­u­tive, that the Pres­i­dency would become a dic­ta­tor­ship) low­ers the Con­sti­tu­tion­ally required approval from 67 Sen­a­tors down to only 50 Sen­a­tors.

This two-thirds rule is set forth in the Con­sti­tu­tion in order to make espe­cially dif­fi­cult the passing-into-law of any treaty that the United States will have with any for­eign coun­try. The same two-thirds require­ment is set forth for amend­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion, except that that’s a two-thirds require­ment in both the House and the Sen­ate: it can be done “by either: two-thirds (super­ma­jor­ity) of both the Sen­ate and the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives …; or by a national con­ven­tion assem­bled at the request of the leg­is­la­tures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.”

Get­ting two-thirds of either house of Con­gress to vote for a bill is rare and dif­fi­cult, but it has hap­pened 27 times, because the entire process was pub­lic, and because there was wide­spread sup­port of each Amendment.

By con­trast: Obama’s pro­posed trade treaties are still secret.

The dif­fer­ence between 50 Sen­a­tors ver­sus 67 Sen­a­tors is, essen­tially, the dif­fer­ence between a treaty that is pub­licly dis­cussed and widely accept­able to the Amer­i­can pub­lic (the peo­ple, after all, who voted for those mem­bers of Con­gress); ver­sus a secret treaty that will be widely unac­cept­able to the Amer­i­can pub­lic when the Amer­ica pub­lic will become informed of its con­tents, which won’t be until years after the treaty has already gone into effect.

This is the rea­son why only a tiny frac­tion of authen­tic “trade bills” even need “Fast Track Trade Pro­mo­tion Author­ity” in order to pass; most trade bills are passed in the nor­mal way. A Pres­i­dent doesn’t ask for “Fast Track Trade Pro­mo­tion Author­ity” unless he is going to be pre­sent­ing to the Con­gress a treaty that is so hor­ri­ble for the Amer­i­can peo­ple that only few mem­bers of either the House or the Sen­ate would vote for it — the bill needs “Fast Track” in order for it to be able to pass.

What types of “Trade Bills” are these?

They are treaties in which only a tiny frac­tion of the treaty actu­ally has to do with “Trade,” or with tar­iffs and other legal favoritisms toward one nation as opposed to another.  In other words: They’re leg­is­la­tion to cede our national sov­er­eignty to inter­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions. Issues of tar­iffs and other “trade” dis­putes between nations are tacked onto these multi­na­tional treaties in order to be able to fool the pub­lic into think­ing that all that’s at issue is “trade.”

Now, it’s true that “Fast Track” does also elim­i­nate the abil­ity of mem­bers of the Sen­ate to pro­pose an amend­ment to the treaty that the Pres­i­dent is pre­sent­ing for their approval. But that’s a rel­a­tively minor fea­ture of “Fast Track,” which was included in the con­cept in order for “Fast Track” to be able to be described by politi­cians and by the ‘news’ media as being a minor mat­ter — no “big deal,” no ced­ing of sov­er­eignty to inter­na­tional corporations.

It’s not a minor mat­ter; it’s the biggest mat­ter in Pres­i­dent Obama’s entire Pres­i­dencyit’s about scan­dalously bad inter­na­tional treaties with many nations at once, in which inter­na­tional cor­po­ra­tions (that is, the hun­dred or so indi­vid­u­als who own the con­trol­ling inter­ests in them) will be handed our national and demo­c­ra­tic sover­ieignty over labor rights, con­sumer rights, envi­ron­men­tal rights, and investors’ rights — it’s every way that those bil­lion­aires can think of to pass off onto the pub­lic the harms that they do while keep­ing for them­selves all the ben­e­fits of the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose game they’re play­ing with the U.S. pub­lic and that of every other sig­na­tory nation. It’s inter­na­tional fas­cism, not merely fas­cism  of the local type.

And that’s what we’ve now got.

Pentagon directive authorizes military forces against civilians — Was considered for use in Bundy standoff

Print Friendly
Frank DuBois, past NM Sec. of Agriculture, former legislative assistant to a U.S. Senator, and a Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior.

Frank DuBois.

A 2010 Pen­ta­gon direc­tive on mil­i­tary sup­port to civil­ian author­i­ties details what crit­ics say is a trou­bling pol­icy that envi­sions the Obama administration’s poten­tial use of mil­i­tary force against Amer­i­cans. The direc­tive con­tains non­con­tro­ver­sial pro­vi­sions on sup­port to civil­ian fire and emer­gency ser­vices, spe­cial events and the domes­tic use of the Army Corps of Engineers.

The trou­bling aspect of the direc­tive out­lines pres­i­den­tial author­ity for the use of mil­i­tary arms and forces, includ­ing unarmed drones, in oper­a­tions against domes­tic unrest. “This appears to be the lat­est step in the administration’s deci­sion to use force within the United States against its cit­i­zens,” said a defense offi­cial opposed to the directive.

Direc­tive No. 3025.18, “Defense Sup­port of Civil Author­i­ties,” was issued Dec. 29, 2010, and states that U.S. com­man­ders “are pro­vided emer­gency author­ity under this direc­tive.” [Con­tinue reading]

Alameda County Republican Party Platform Regarding Agenda 21

FA Note:  The following, Alameda County Republican Party Platform Banning Agenda 21, was drafted by Freedom Advocates and is intended for use by Democrat and Republican Central Committees around the country. Is your county’s political activism … [Continue reading]

Senate Reverses Course and Advances TPP Fast Track Bill

https://act.eff.org/action/tell-congress-oppose-fast-track-for-the-tpp

The U.S. Senate advanced the Fast Track bill today May 14) in a rushed vote following a slew of concessions made to swing Democrats who had voted to block it earlier this week. The setback on Tuesday could have forced proponents of the Trans-Pacific … [Continue reading]

THE LEGISLATURE AND THE SOB SISTER CIRCUS

Yesterday (May 19) was an experience.  It was never on my bucket list to testify to a state legislature on legislation but I did it.  And I learned a lot.HB 1 was the replacement bill for S.1067 – the bill that integrates the Hague Convention on … [Continue reading]

The Empty Chair

Attorney_General_Office_80

Occasionally when one writes on political issues, it’s easy to get carried away.  When I wrote The Legislature and The Sob Sister Circus, I spoke ill of Scott Keim, Deputy Attorney General of the State of Idaho.  I said he “got his law degree out of … [Continue reading]

Sessions on the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)

From US Senator Jeff Sessions: “…here are the top five concerns about the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that must be fully understood and addressed before passage:”“Consolidation Of Power In The Executive Branch. TPA eliminates Congress’ … [Continue reading]

U.S. backs down on trade dispute

FA Note: This article exemplifies the use of international law and trade agreements to nullify U.S. sovereignty and consumer protections. Facing threatened retaliation from Canada over “country of origin” meat labelling ruled unlawful by the World … [Continue reading]