4 ms·

> With IPEF, even Congress has been shut out of negotiations, which limits accountability and transparency. Both Democratic(new window) and Republican(new windo

> With IPEF, even Congress has been shut out of negotiations, which limits accountability and transparency. Both Democratic(new window) and Republican(new window) lawmakers have spoken out to oppose the US Trade Representative’s usurpation of congressional authority to craft domestic tech policy. So trade-agreements which overrides national laws are being developed without any representatives from the actual government which is asked to enact this into law? Come on. At least pretend you’re not trying to sidestep democracy and democratic processes entirely. This is embarrassingly transparent, and I can’t see actions like this do anything but further the conspiracy(?)-theories surrounding World Economic Forum.

amelius 3y ago
Can't we have a constitutional law that always invalidates any law that is implemented in a way that goes against democratic principles?
- pjc50 3y ago
  There's a very real problem that "make binding agreement with another country" and "total independence of the legislature" are incompatible. The most obvious one is external debt - see what happened when Argentina tried to legislate theirs away. If your country agrees not to make a law that has a certain effect, and then makes that law, it's breached international law. And for countries other than America that has negative consequences imposed by America.
  - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
    What is the proper way to handle a future legislature saying "who cares what our predecessors ratified? The populace changed its mind. Isn't democracy grand?"
    - chii 3y ago
      > What is the proper way to handle a future legislature by force (ala an invasion), or by not ever dealing with said country again. A populous wanting to change their mind is not a reason to invalidate a treaty unilaterally - this sort of behaviour should be frowned upon. The process should be to renegotiate a new treaty that all parties to the treaty agree to.
      - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
        Then it's a behavior that can only be gotten away with if said populace also has a stockpile of W80s and other H-bombs (and is flooded with guns and wannabe domestic terrorists)
- gostsamo 3y ago
  If you define the democratic principals in the constitution, and define them as fundamental, then the constitutional court would consider any lesser law as unconstitutional.
  - amelius 3y ago
    Yes, but the people in favor of the law will just say that the senate approved of the law, and since they are democratically installed ...
    - gostsamo 3y ago
      It does not matter, it is the constitutional court who decides if the law is compatible with the constitution, not the senate. E.g. if in the constitution it is written that judges must be elected with a popular vote, the senate cannot adopt a law saying that it is a president's prerogative. The fact that both senate and president are democratically elected does not matter, because their legitimacy is given by the constitution and therefore they cannot override it. So, the constitution is a protection, however, you should define well what a "democratic principal" is and how to recognize if something is not part of it. The best way is to assert a list of unalienable rights like right of property, access to information, and right of privacy, such that no law could be adopted which goes against them. The government being democratic is only a secondary defense, and not very reliable should add. * fictional example
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Curiously there was vehement argument at the time of the Bill of Rights, that enshrining a fixed list of rights might mean that no other rights could exist. Which is actually pretty close to what happened. E.g. the right to freedom of speech is generally not enforced except as the government itself will not enact laws to restrict it. Individuals, corporations are still free to censure other individuals. So we don't have freedom of speech in that sense. Thanks, Bill of Rights! So maybe not the 'best way' of ensuring rights.
        3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bregma 3y ago
Here's how the US Constitution works: the Executive is solely responsible for negotiating and signing international treaties and trade deals with no input from Congress or the Judiciary. Once signed, a treaty or trade deal is a piece of paper with no value. Once a trade deal has been made by the Executive, Congress needs to introduce and pass legislation to implement the deal. They may choose to implement it as is, or more likely make all kinds of changes and implement something completely different. Once Congress has passed an implementation bill into law, the Executive develops all the rules and regulations associated with it and actually implements it, including enforcement bodies and committees to determine if the treaty or trade deal has been violated. Then it's up to the Judicial branch to determine if the laws passed by Congress are valid or not, in terms of other laws and precedents, when asked. So don't go off on some internet-based conspiracy rant that regular constitutional operations are trying to subvert Your Freedoms. Read opinion pieces on the internet in the context of knowledge and actual fact and in the spirit of click draws and eyeball sales.
- ororroro 3y ago
  Executive agreements (agreements made in the absence of the Senate) are not mentioned in the Constitution, but they are considered binding U.S. international agreements under Supreme Court case law and as a matter of historical practice.
  - amadeuspagel 3y ago
    What about the Iran Deal? Wasn't that an executive agreement made without the Senate, and wasn't that immidiately scrapped once Trump came into power?
    - ororroro 3y ago
      Not familiar with the details but I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Nuclear_Agreement_Review_Act_of_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Nuclear_Agreement_Review_... provided a loophole. An excellent example of why people scramble for opinion pieces rather than just checking the constitution.

amelius 3y ago

Can't we have a constitutional law that always invalidates any law that is implemented in a way that goes against democratic principles?

pjc50 3y ago
There's a very real problem that "make binding agreement with another country" and "total independence of the legislature" are incompatible. The most obvious one is external debt - see what happened when Argentina tried to legislate theirs away. If your country agrees not to make a law that has a certain effect, and then makes that law, it's breached international law. And for countries other than America that has negative consequences imposed by America.
- BeFlatXIII 3y ago
  What is the proper way to handle a future legislature saying "who cares what our predecessors ratified? The populace changed its mind. Isn't democracy grand?"
  - chii 3y ago
    > What is the proper way to handle a future legislature by force (ala an invasion), or by not ever dealing with said country again. A populous wanting to change their mind is not a reason to invalidate a treaty unilaterally - this sort of behaviour should be frowned upon. The process should be to renegotiate a new treaty that all parties to the treaty agree to.
    - BeFlatXIII 3y ago
      Then it's a behavior that can only be gotten away with if said populace also has a stockpile of W80s and other H-bombs (and is flooded with guns and wannabe domestic terrorists)
gostsamo 3y ago
If you define the democratic principals in the constitution, and define them as fundamental, then the constitutional court would consider any lesser law as unconstitutional.
- amelius 3y ago
  Yes, but the people in favor of the law will just say that the senate approved of the law, and since they are democratically installed ...
  - gostsamo 3y ago
    It does not matter, it is the constitutional court who decides if the law is compatible with the constitution, not the senate. E.g. if in the constitution it is written that judges must be elected with a popular vote, the senate cannot adopt a law saying that it is a president's prerogative. The fact that both senate and president are democratically elected does not matter, because their legitimacy is given by the constitution and therefore they cannot override it. So, the constitution is a protection, however, you should define well what a "democratic principal" is and how to recognize if something is not part of it. The best way is to assert a list of unalienable rights like right of property, access to information, and right of privacy, such that no law could be adopted which goes against them. The government being democratic is only a secondary defense, and not very reliable should add. * fictional example
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Curiously there was vehement argument at the time of the Bill of Rights, that enshrining a fixed list of rights might mean that no other rights could exist. Which is actually pretty close to what happened. E.g. the right to freedom of speech is generally not enforced except as the government itself will not enact laws to restrict it. Individuals, corporations are still free to censure other individuals. So we don't have freedom of speech in that sense. Thanks, Bill of Rights! So maybe not the 'best way' of ensuring rights.
      - 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

bregma 3y ago

Here's how the US Constitution works: the Executive is solely responsible for negotiating and signing international treaties and trade deals with no input from Congress or the Judiciary. Once signed, a treaty or trade deal is a piece of paper with no value. Once a trade deal has been made by the Executive, Congress needs to introduce and pass legislation to implement the deal. They may choose to implement it as is, or more likely make all kinds of changes and implement something completely different. Once Congress has passed an implementation bill into law, the Executive develops all the rules and regulations associated with it and actually implements it, including enforcement bodies and committees to determine if the treaty or trade deal has been violated. Then it's up to the Judicial branch to determine if the laws passed by Congress are valid or not, in terms of other laws and precedents, when asked. So don't go off on some internet-based conspiracy rant that regular constitutional operations are trying to subvert Your Freedoms. Read opinion pieces on the internet in the context of knowledge and actual fact and in the spirit of click draws and eyeball sales.

ororroro 3y ago
Executive agreements (agreements made in the absence of the Senate) are not mentioned in the Constitution, but they are considered binding U.S. international agreements under Supreme Court case law and as a matter of historical practice.
- amadeuspagel 3y ago
  What about the Iran Deal? Wasn't that an executive agreement made without the Senate, and wasn't that immidiately scrapped once Trump came into power?
  - ororroro 3y ago
    Not familiar with the details but I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Nuclear_Agreement_Review_Act_of_2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Nuclear_Agreement_Review_... provided a loophole. An excellent example of why people scramble for opinion pieces rather than just checking the constitution.