First of all let's consider that according to Ware
Post# of 65629
Posted On: 04/07/2016 7:46:50 AM
First of all let's consider that according to Ware vs. Hylton, a Supreme Court case from 1796, treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. In other words, if something in the treaty comes into conflict with even the Constitution of the United States, the treaty prevails. These agreements are massive, if I remember correctly GATT was 25,000 to 30,000 pages, and buried in those pages can be rules, regs, and laws that those in power can implement at their leisure.
Now I will freely admit to not knowing what is in the TPP, but at worse, I'm probably as informed as the knuckle heads who will be voting on it. In a nutshell, I get real suspicious when a bunch of repubbies are all of a sudden pushing to give Barry S almost unlimited power to negotiate a deal when normally they wouldn't trust him to put together a jay walking law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnyPsKw_gak
I first began concerning myself with trade agreements in 1994 when NAFTA made it's appearance. I was working on a political campaign at the time, Spratt vs. Bigham, in the 5th district of SC. I took it on myself to learn as much as I could about the treaty and to me it was fairly easy to see that jobs and especially textile jobs would be nailed if this squat was implemented.
things were looking kinda bad for the pro NAFTA Clinton and one way he got a vote in favor of NAFTA was to promise John Spratt that if he voted for NAFTA there would be protection for the textile industry in the GATT agreement that would be voted on later. Well, Clinton lied to no one's surprise, except maybe Spratt's, and now the textile industry in SC is pretty much grave yard dead.
In 94 there was a section in "The State" called "Impact" and Impact had a winner and loser of the week column. I bet you can easily guess what SC politician won the loser category.
Being pushed to the nth degree by Sanders now, all of a sudden our gal Hill is against the TPP. Rest assured though that if elected. that damn thing will be hung around the neck of the American people.
Now I will freely admit to not knowing what is in the TPP, but at worse, I'm probably as informed as the knuckle heads who will be voting on it. In a nutshell, I get real suspicious when a bunch of repubbies are all of a sudden pushing to give Barry S almost unlimited power to negotiate a deal when normally they wouldn't trust him to put together a jay walking law.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnyPsKw_gak
I first began concerning myself with trade agreements in 1994 when NAFTA made it's appearance. I was working on a political campaign at the time, Spratt vs. Bigham, in the 5th district of SC. I took it on myself to learn as much as I could about the treaty and to me it was fairly easy to see that jobs and especially textile jobs would be nailed if this squat was implemented.
things were looking kinda bad for the pro NAFTA Clinton and one way he got a vote in favor of NAFTA was to promise John Spratt that if he voted for NAFTA there would be protection for the textile industry in the GATT agreement that would be voted on later. Well, Clinton lied to no one's surprise, except maybe Spratt's, and now the textile industry in SC is pretty much grave yard dead.
In 94 there was a section in "The State" called "Impact" and Impact had a winner and loser of the week column. I bet you can easily guess what SC politician won the loser category.
Being pushed to the nth degree by Sanders now, all of a sudden our gal Hill is against the TPP. Rest assured though that if elected. that damn thing will be hung around the neck of the American people.
(0)
(0)