3 ms·

The difficulty in removing them is also why legislation enacted by way of treaties should be vigorously debated in an open forum, as opposed to the way the Tran

The difficulty in removing them is also why legislation enacted by way of treaties should be vigorously debated in an open forum, as opposed to the way the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been negotiated.

anigbrowl 12y ago
I think up-or-down votes or referenda are more appropriate for that. Multilateral treaties are inherently legislative documents, and legislating-to-legislate looks like a self-defeating increase in complexity - there's a reason that governments have executive as well as legislative functions, even though they ,may not always yield results we like in the short term. I mean, imagine if the votes of US senators on individual issues were governed by the outcome of votes in state legislatures - you'd have a more responsive democracy on the face of things but in practice legislative work would slow to an utter crawl and you'd have even more procedural maneuvering than we do now. I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP, which would be a shrewd political tactic; while I don't much like that it might benefit the GOP, that's outweighed by my support of free trade and my low opinion of economic populism and national sovereignty (just to be up=front about my political biases).
- Alupis 12y ago
  > I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP He doesn't need congressional approval -- that's exactly how the TPP has been getting negotiated this entire time -- and is exactly why it's so outstandingly bad. Back room deals regarding IP rights (pushed hard by the MPAA, RIAA and other lobbying organizations) among many other blanketed things that the public has no knowledge of nor any say in but will ultimately be as effective as law here in the country. (so much for the legislative branch)
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    You are mistaken. Existing negotiations are geared towards the production of a preliminary draft that would then be subject to legislative debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf <<CRS is the Congressional Research Service, a useful resource for anyone interested in policy matters http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-house-works-to-convince-dems-to-give-obama-fast-track-on-trade http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-hous... (so much for the legislative branch) I could say the same thing about the executive branch, which persons like yourself seem to think should merely administrate the legislative will. Our constitutional design institutionalizes tension between these two branches of government, and very explicitly grants the President power to make treaties, subject to a 2/3 approval from the Senate for ratification. Trade agreements are not exactly the same as treaties, but there is ample precedent for Congress pre-emptively authorizing the President to negotiate them. The consitutional basis for this is discussed in some detail near the start of the CRS paper linked above.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      PS I don't mean you're mistaken about your disapproval of fast track negotiation - that's a completely valid opinion, albeit one with which I disagree. I just meant you were mistaken in regard to your assertion that the President doesn't need to consult Congress. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

anigbrowl 12y ago

I think up-or-down votes or referenda are more appropriate for that. Multilateral treaties are inherently legislative documents, and legislating-to-legislate looks like a self-defeating increase in complexity - there's a reason that governments have executive as well as legislative functions, even though they ,may not always yield results we like in the short term. I mean, imagine if the votes of US senators on individual issues were governed by the outcome of votes in state legislatures - you'd have a more responsive democracy on the face of things but in practice legislative work would slow to an utter crawl and you'd have even more procedural maneuvering than we do now. I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP, which would be a shrewd political tactic; while I don't much like that it might benefit the GOP, that's outweighed by my support of free trade and my low opinion of economic populism and national sovereignty (just to be up=front about my political biases).

Alupis 12y ago
> I'm personally hoping the incoming congress gives the President fast-track authority to negotiate both the TPP and TTIP He doesn't need congressional approval -- that's exactly how the TPP has been getting negotiated this entire time -- and is exactly why it's so outstandingly bad. Back room deals regarding IP rights (pushed hard by the MPAA, RIAA and other lobbying organizations) among many other blanketed things that the public has no knowledge of nor any say in but will ultimately be as effective as law here in the country. (so much for the legislative branch)
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  You are mistaken. Existing negotiations are geared towards the production of a preliminary draft that would then be subject to legislative debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf <<CRS is the Congressional Research Service, a useful resource for anyone interested in policy matters http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-house-works-to-convince-dems-to-give-obama-fast-track-on-trade http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/195858-white-hous... (so much for the legislative branch) I could say the same thing about the executive branch, which persons like yourself seem to think should merely administrate the legislative will. Our constitutional design institutionalizes tension between these two branches of government, and very explicitly grants the President power to make treaties, subject to a 2/3 approval from the Senate for ratification. Trade agreements are not exactly the same as treaties, but there is ample precedent for Congress pre-emptively authorizing the President to negotiate them. The consitutional basis for this is discussed in some detail near the start of the CRS paper linked above.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    PS I don't mean you're mistaken about your disapproval of fast track negotiation - that's a completely valid opinion, albeit one with which I disagree. I just meant you were mistaken in regard to your assertion that the President doesn't need to consult Congress. Sorry if that wasn't clear.