Just an FYI: Members of Congress Can't reveal what's in the TPP. It's classified

[cali]

under the auspice of National Security.

They'd be in a shitload of trouble if they leaked anything in it or related to the negotiation process.

Most transparent administration EVAH.

[LiberalAndProud]

1. If it's good medicine, it must taste bitter.

Take it. It's good for you, you're just too stupid to know it.

Trust me.




(^That was sarcasm, in case a jury is convened.)

[AzDar]

2. K & R

[LanternWaste]

3. Seems then that even the best analysis of it would be guesswork.

Seems then that even the best advertised analysis of it would be little more than guesswork.

[Maedhros]

6. Only if you ignore all of the leaked material that has been extensively analyzed.[n/t]

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. True ...

But it makes for sensational "news".

But with that said, it would seem that people would accept that the most informed parties in this "debate" would be members of the Administration, particularly, the Secretary of Labor. No?

[cali]

15. drafts of 3 critical chapters have been leaked

Environment
Intellectual Properties
Investment

They've been extensively analyzed. Other documentation has also been leaked.

Lies and misinformation shouldn't stand.

[1StrongBlackMan]

17. I completely agree ...

The lies and misinformation mustn't stand; so, let's start with what is your understanding of the meaning of the term, "draft"?

[cali]

18. read this

but I don't hold out any hope for you. You've abdicated critical thinking for faith. Reminds me of...

"Trust" Democrats on the TPP Chapter Leaks: They're only drafts so they're meaningless.
Baloney. Claiming that the leaked Environmental, Copyright and Investment Chapters are meaningless because they may have changed or may change in the future, is like saying the dress rehearsal for a play has no relationship to what the audience will see on opening night.

There have been 20 rounds of negotiations. The last chapter leaked, the Investment chapter, was released after all 20 rounds. The other 2 were released after most of those negotiations. Changes may yet come, but they won't be big changes- only a few issues are still under negotiation. Even if you want to argue that, what you can't argue is that the drafts give us insight into what the U.S. negotiators have pushed.

These are important chapters. And they aren't all that's been leaked. Lots of documents regarding the process have, as well.

So, yeah. We don't have access to the entire agreement- not even close. The most transparent administration ever has invoked the National Security system to shroud it in unprecedented secrecy. That's bullshit because it's been seen by reps from such corporations as Halliburton and Cargill- and many others, as well by all the member nations.

You want to insist that we know absolutely nothing about the TPP and should trust Daddy, er, I mean President Obama, go for it, but that assertion is not accurate.

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. I sense your frustration, which is completely ...

Understandable, when you must know that your speculative position pales u Der the weight of the truth of "we don't know."

One has to wonder why someone would push so hard to have their speculation, carry the force of fact? Especially when time, and only time, will prove truth.

[cali]

25. lol

Unsurprisingly, you can't respond to the points

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. What points require a response? ...

that the drafts are drafts that, presumably, survived several rounds of negotiations?

Okay, let's end this drama ... this whole debate centers, ultimately, around life management strategies ... I choose to be alarmed by things that ARE; not things that might be. It is a simple life management strategy that has proven effective.

Apparently, you choose to be alarmed by things that might be ... so be it; though it seems to be a frightfully, wasteful expenditure of energy and resources.

[zeemike]

43. If there was no secrets there would be no need for speculation.

If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear from public opinion right?

This "most transparent administration" has proven to be doublespeak.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. International negotiations, whether trade or peace, have always been ...

conducted in secret, for the same reason most public contracts (including Union contracts) are negotiated in secret ... and neither have (much) to do with public opinion.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

51. I will tell you what I wrote elsewhere, Obama said on tweety yesterday, I think, that we have

permanently lost our manufacturing jobs, I think.

Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

He doesnt know how to tell us this, but the Koch Bros, Walton's, Wall Street, rightwingers and most major corps have informed him there is no reason for them to ever hire Americans again with their silly notions of unions, decent wages, etc.


So, in order to survive in this new system, where we will not get those jobs back, we have to compromise and be part of a bigger picture and that if we do not do that, we will be left far behind.

I think he believes this and he is probably right.

However, we could fix it IF we would be willing to institute tariffs again and create an environment where eventually we make most of what we buy. But there is no political will for that because the people with all the money who buy all of our elections, have no interest in that.

That is what I think.

[1StrongBlackMan]

55. I did not hear the Tweety interview; but, I doubt that is what he said ...

I know that he has said that some manufacturing jobs have left America, and some of them are unlikely to come back. But the USTR's negotiating Objectives are designed to significantly affect/reduce labor/environmental arbitrage.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

57. Maybe. Fast track is wrong, period. If there is nothing to hide, then dont hide nothing.

This could be irreversible hell if we are not diligent NOW...

Think of it like buying a new car, huge investment, better test drive that for a while and make sure the position and type of seat wont irritate your sciatica making it impossible to own, think of all that money you lose trading a new car in.


Same thing here, kind of

[1StrongBlackMan]

59. What does Fast Track do? ...

It gives an up or down vote on any agreement ... where a bad deal, gets voting down.

But it also prevent the gop from stuffing the trade agreement with bad stuff ... like, abortion bans, SSM bans, cuts to SS/Medicare/Medicaid, and a lot of other stuff on the gop wish list.

[zeemike]

52. Union contracts are revealed to the members and they can vote on them.

They can accept and reject it.
And to say this has nothing to do with what the public thinks is the exact opposite of democricy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. Just like the TPP under Fast Track ...

thank you for making my point!

[zeemike]

56. No not at all like that.

Not even close. We will have no say at all about it...Money will decide.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. So democracy is dead? ...

When do you move?

[zeemike]

60. I don't move.

I don't just give up like you suggest we should.
Besides I have had my threescore years and ten so what is being done is not to me but the next generation who will have to live with all the shit that is coming down.

I will be the Grateful Dead.

[1StrongBlackMan]

64. I haven't suggested giving up. n/t

[zeemike]

65. Well that is how I read it.

When you suggested I should move.

[1StrongBlackMan]

66. No ...

I was asking whether you thought this deal is done ... despite the (forthcoming) release of the agreement and the subsequent congressional vote.

[zeemike]

68. Yes this deal is done as far as they are concerned.

Because they intend to elect people who will give it to them, and as long as we have democrats that are willing to sell it to us for sake of party loyalty and a win.

But we will see if we are fooled again...and just how much the American people will take before they have had enough.
And whether there is a "let them eat cake" moment.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. Okay.

[zeemike]

69. See what I told you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141074721#post9

[KMOD]

4. ah, thanks for the info

I was wondering why Elizabeth Warren wasn't specific about what she wishes to amend.

[pampango]

5. I doubt they were allowed to reveal the contents of the Iranian nuclear negotiations or of

the Cuban diplomatic agreement and the Chinese and Indian environmental agreements while they were being negotiated. For better or worse, serious international negotiations are routinely done without public access. (That may be at US insistence or the wishes of negotiators from other countries.)

Despite this, most liberals were not unhappy with the outcome of these international negotiations. (I know that some say they only dealt with nuclear weapons and climate change; not really "important" issues.) None of them even go to congress for a formal vote - sort of a 'super-fast track', I suppose - except for parts of the Iranian agreement when too many Democratic senators bailed on Obama.

[cali]

10. seeing as hundreds of corporate advisors, not to mention the

nations involved, have seen the drafts, it seems ridiculous. I posted earlier about a law suit to force the USTR, under FOIA, to reveal more of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026548587

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government;

Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.

 Thomas Jefferson

Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. Lord Acton

Yet, we're supposed to "trust" a government that doesn't trust the people.

[sufrommich]

9. Do you mean they can't reveal while it's being negotiated? nt

[cali]

11. As I understand it, they can't reveal anything until it's introduced to be voted on

at which point, under the recently negotiated TPA, it will be public.

Here's some info

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026548587

[rhett o rick]

12. k & r. Thanks for posting. nm

[DanTex]

13. It will be made public before it's voted on.

[Oilwellian]

23. You mean AFTER Fast Track is passed

IF it passes. The vote will then go to just the Senate and there are enough Third Way Dems willing to give their consent and make it filibuster proof.

[Agschmid]

34. For 60 days...

It will be transparent before the vote.

[valerief]

14. Would they be in more trouble than the soldiers they send to fight the

billionaires' wars? IOW, would the congress critters be willing to fight for their country by divulging what's in the TPP? Would they be as brave as a soldier?

No. Didn't think so.

[Buns_of_Fire]

42. Remember, though, they couldn't divulge any of it even if they WANTED to.

They're only allowed to see it if they go over to wherever the drafts are kept, where they're left to peruse it. Alone. No pencils, paper, or recording devices. Not even with a staffer who might be able to help them navigate it.

So they're spared any temptation to indulge in any "profiles in courage" moment (as if). They'll see the final document that they'll be expected to vote up-or-down on at the same time that we unwashed masses do. At least this one time, and except for the leaks, we're all in one big clueless boat together.

[valerief]

87. They can. They'd be Snowdened, but they can. nt

[bemildred]

16. Member of Congress on the floor can say what they like. nt

[cali]

19. with impunitiy?

[bemildred]

28. Theoretically.

Article one, section six:

"and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place"

[cali]

29. hard to see that applying to state secrets

[bemildred]

30. I don't see any exception for state secrets there.

And the issue is not overlooked in other places in the same section.

[Mnpaul]

36. Discussing state secrets

would be done in a closed door session.

[joshcryer]

76. A Snowden style leak would have to be more ... careful.

Say Wyden or Udall wanted to release the mass gathering of data stuff, they would have had to radicate everything and personally take it on (they can't give that data to a staffer to go over and radicate; edit: I just read the Gravel case and staffers working in their duties that the Senator himself could do granted them immunity as well; Gravel was apparently dyslexic; so my theory on Udall or Wyden may not apply fully but it could still be there).

But I believe you are correct that they can say whatever the fuck they want.

[bemildred]

84. Thank you. I believe I am too.

And if I were a Congressperson intent on serving my constituents, I would make damn sure they knew all about it and had a chance to complain.

[deutsey]

38. Wasn't this affirmed with the Pentagon Papers in Gravel v. United States?

Gravel v. United States, 408 U.S. 606 (1972), was a case regarding the protections offered by the Speech or Debate Clause of the United States Constitution. In the case, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the privileges and immunities of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.

SNIP

On Tuesday, June 15, 1971, Senator Mike Gravel (D-Alaska) received a copy of the Pentagon Papers from Ben Bagdikian, an editor at The Washington Post.[1] Over the next several days, Gravel (who was dyslexic) was assisted by his congressional office staff in reading and analyzing the report.[1] Worried his home might be raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Gravel smuggled the report (which filled two large suitcases) into his congressional office, which was then guarded by disabled Vietnam veterans.[1]

On the evening of June 29, 1971, Gravel attempted to read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record.[2] A lack of a quorum, however, prevented the Senate from convening.[1][2] As chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds, Gravel convened a meeting of the subcommittee and spent an hour reading part of the Pentagon Papers into the record.[1] Prevented by his dyslexia from continuing, Gravel had the remainder of the Pentagon Papers entered into the record.[1][2]

SNIP

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the privileges of the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides. Rejecting the reasoning of the court of appeals and substituting its own, "...the privilege available to the aide is confined to those services that would be immune legislative conduct if performed by the Senator himself," the Court declared.[7] However, the Court refused to protect congressional aides from prosecution for criminal conduct, or from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third-party crimes.[8] The Supreme Court also threw out the lower courts' order permitting some questions and barring others, concluding that if the testimony is privileged then the privilege is absolute.[9]

However, the Court upheld the district court's ruling regarding private publication. "[Private] publication by Senator Gravel through the cooperation of Beacon Press was in no way essential to the deliberations of the Senate; nor does questioning as to private publication threaten the integrity or independence of the Senate by impermissibly exposing its deliberations to executive influence."[10]

MORE at...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel_v._United_States

Interesting interview with Gravel here:

http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2014/12/16/former_senator_mike_gravel_on_putting

[bemildred]

40. +1.

Thanks I was trying to remember that.

[Mnpaul]

46. I was trying to remember his name

We need another Gravel to read this into the record.

[bemildred]

47. Indeed. nt

[tritsofme]

61. Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers?

[joshcryer]

74. Absolutely.

Without question.

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

Try fucking arresting a Congress person for revealing a draft of a trade agreement. Jesus.

You're talking constitutional crisis level of fuckup there.

[joshcryer]

75. My guess is why make a fuss when it will be made public anyway.

It'll be public for a month before there's a vote. So no one thinks it's worth ruffling feathers (and potentially losing committee or access to other sensitive information). It's obviously not that big of a deal to even the most liberal of Congresspeople.

[bemildred]

83. Right, exactly, no big deal for them, why is everyone so upset? nt

[Scuba]

20. Kick.

[Mnpaul]

22. I can't believe

that after all these threads, people still have misconceptions about the process. A local host pointed out something important yesterday, this treaty once passed is permanent and can't removed/negotiated unless all parties agree.

[Oilwellian]

24. Treaties are Constitutionally protected

and become law of the land. It will be interesting when the laws of the Treaty bump against the laws of our nation.

[Mnpaul]

35. Treaties do not trump the Constitution

and the Constitution puts trade negotiations in the hands of Congress. I don't see how they can delegate that authority without violating(or amending) the Constitution.

[deutsey]

39. The Constitution also puts war powers in the hands of Congress

and we can see how that has turned out.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. This post is apropos of nothing. n/t

[deutsey]

62. Thanks for the laugh!

[cherokeeprogressive]

63. That's okay I laughed too.

We're talking about TPP and you're talking about war powers.

?

[deutsey]

67. In this sub-thread we're talking about Constitutional powers

"Treaties do not trump the Constitution...."

Perhaps I didn't provide a nuanced treatise here, but I was simply commenting (in an offhand way because I was getting ready to leave work) that just because something is in the Constitution (these days) doesn't mean we as a nation necessarily adhere to it.

Constitutionally, Congress is supposed to have the power to declare war. How many wars have we been involved in since WWII that Congress has used that power?

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. We were talking about treaties not war powers.

Do you understand apples and oranges?

[deutsey]

72. C-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n

Not f-r-u-i-t.

See? I can be just as obtuse as you!

[cherokeeprogressive]

81. Doubt that.

[Oilwellian]

41. The Supremacy Clause is in the Constitution

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

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

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...

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

The Constitution puts trade negotiations in the hands of the Executive and a super majority of the Senate.

[Mnpaul]

44. Correct

I meant to say regulate not negotiate referring to the Commerce Clause.

The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

and I believe something this important should have to pass by a 2/3rds vote

[Mnpaul]

45. and the Constitution trumping treaties

was settled in the courts in Reid v. Covert

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the United States Senate. According to the decision, "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

[pampango]

79. Trade agreements are not treaties which are ratified by 2/3 of the Senate with no House involvement.

Trade agreements are approved by a majority vote in both houses and fail if they do not get that.

[Lil Missy]

26. So, those not in Congress who insist it is so bad,

can't see it because it's classified, are really talking out of their neverminds, because they have no idea what is in it.

Got it.

[cali]

27. bzzt

Congresscritters have seen drafts. They can't reveal anything about them

[Phlem]

33. I know right! Cause NAFTA was so awesome!

[hifiguy]

31. This is the main reason to avoid the TPP

as if it were a ship full of plague rats.

Anything the pukes and the tenth-percenters want this badly by definition has to be a complete catastrophe for the average Jane and Joe. Guaran-damn-teed.

[Phlem]

32. Hope and Change!

" You can hope all you want, any change will be to give the 1% more money."

Rinse, Repeat.

[madfloridian]

37. Wow sounds like the Iraq invasion NIE report they either wouldn't read or couldn't discuss.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026076956

This angers me so. It feels just like the lead up to war. Only this time it's war against us, the American people.

[zeemike]

48. And it is a war they intend to win.

And our anger don't mean shit to them.

[joshcryer]

73. Actually, under Speech and Debate they can do whatever the fuck they want.

Quite literally.

Why they aren't is anyones guess.

Guess they don't think it's that big of a deal.

Senator Warren who has seen the document (she revealed ISDS before it was revealed) has not done as such.

[Hoyt]

77. Obviously it's not "classified" because folks are spreading a lot of misinformation about it and

the entire draft will be released several months before Congress decides if it will ratify the agreement.

And you can read fairly detailed summaries right on the government USTR site.

[cali]

78. it is. there's a lawsuit attempting to declassify

Do you ever research anything?

[Hoyt]

80. More politics. Elizabeth Warren has a petition to release it before Congress votes even

though she knows it will be released.

[joshcryer]

86. My favorite demagogue.

[pampango]

82. If it were 'classified' everyone in congress would not be able to walk in and read it.

Sen. Warren said yesterday that they all can do just that. I don't think that everyone in congress has access to truly 'classified' secrets.

[joshcryer]

85. A 1.4(b) classification should be open to all Congresspeople.

It's not a huge deal.