Dick Morris claims the Trans-Pacific Partnership includes ‘unrestricted immigration’
Barack Obama is trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) deal through the Congress, calling for a vote this year. While the President has some allies within the Republican party he has met resistance from an unlikely source–prominent Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and most recently Harry Reid.
And now Dick Morris has come out against it, claiming the deal includes “unrestricted immigration.”
Here is what he had to say:
“This is huge. I hope everybody listening takes action call your senator about it. If he is a Republican he is voting wrong. “I don’t think that people understand that in this deal which is a trade agreement among Australia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Japan, Canada, the United States, Mexico, Peru, and Chile, there’s a provision for free flow of workers, just like in the European Union. What It means is unrestricted immigration. It means literally that congress would not have the authority to restrict immigration because a treaty supersedes a statute under our constitution.”
First of all, the notion that treaties supersede the Constitution is a lie. (see Reid v Covert 1957) Does anyone really believe the Founding Fathers set up a system to change the Constitution and made it a fairly difficult process only to throw it away by undermining the amendment process though treaties?
But let that go because he still has a great point if it is true the TPP includes unrestricted immigration, and we do not know if it is true because the agreement (which is being called an expansion of NAFTA) is secret, because it would appear as if Barack Obama has found another way to skin the cat on immigration.
First he used Executive Action to maneuver his way around the Congress on illegal immigration and now he is using the TPP to get the Congress on board with at least one aspect of immigration and it is being done behind the veil of secrecy.
I have been saying for quite some time now that the Republicans do not really oppose the President on illegal immigration but are merely using the Hegelian Dialectic to feign opposition for political reasons and in the end the synthesis will be what both sides wanted in the first place.
If the Republicans go along with the TPP, and it is true what Dick Morris is saying about unrestricted immigration, than that means the Republicans are going along with Barack Obama’s immigration plan and it does not matter if the Constitution supersedes this treaty or not because there will be virtually nobody in the Congress who will do anything about it so for all intents and purposes the TPP, and unrestricted immigration, will be the supreme law of the land. The American worker is being sold down the river by both sides of the aisle…
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 
I had heard this from other sources as well. But of course we will have to pass the bill to find what is in it. Fools, all of them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That seems to be the way it works nowadays, when will we ever learn?!
LikeLike
Supremacy Clause:
“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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Constitution is Supreme Law. Federal laws and treaties must be in compliance with the Constitution.
“It means literally that congress would not have the authority to restrict immigration because a treaty supersedes a statute under our constitution.</i"
I don't see how a treaty supersedes federal law. Based on the order in the Supremacy Clause, federal laws come second and treaties are last in supremacy. So why would any president be able to negotiate a treaty that violates the Constitution or any Constitutional federal law? The condition for making a treaty is 'under the authority of the United States.' The president doesn't have the authority to violate the Constitution or federal law. Nor can the Senate ratify something that violates the Constitution or a Constitutional law. So how can a treaty take precedence over existing federal law?
Someplace our courts went terribly wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Crap, sorry for the italics. Forgot the last >.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a lie which has been repeated enough to be truth! It amazes me that so many people have bought into it.
LikeLike
Due to people believing SCOTUS is the final authority on everything. Their word is not law, they have no authority to make law. Also, due to people believing that if Congress passes a law, that law is a Constitutional law. I know I’m preaching to the choir with you, Steve, lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
High school history and civics teachers are fond of describing the Constitution as “the l;aw of the land.” So when people find that exact phrase in the Constitution itself, used to describe treaties, they (not surprisingly) think that treaties are at least as meaningful as the Constitution, if not more so.
The fact is — and this has been affirmed by SCOTUS in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) — that the Constitution really is the supreme law of the land, and it supersedes all other legislation and treaties. From the perspective of logic alone, I cannot understand how a statute or treaty, passed pursuant to the terms of the Constitution, could supersede that Constitution. There’s only one way to change the Constitution, and that’s set forth in Article V. The Framers didn’t intend ratification of a treaty to be a backdoor means of amending the Constitution.
That said, let’s note that Morris didn’t claim that treaties supersede the Constitution, but that they supersede statutes. This article seems to contradict that assertion:
http://www.asil.org/insights/volume/2/issue/5/international-agreements-and-us-law
Practically speaking, before a treaty is brought to the floor of the Senate for consent, it’s carefully researched for several purposes, including its consistency with existing law. As for future legislation being restricted by existing treaty obligations, that’s actually the case, but that’s not absolute. As the article points out, such action would place the US in abrogation of its obligations under the treaty, but that’s also not unheard of, whether due to executive or legislative action.
Morris is wrong.
Take good care and may God bless us all!
TGY
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hmmm…we seem to agree on this point, TGY, a little scary, lol.
The Constitution is our Supreme Law, Congress can make no law, the president can issue no EO, the courts can issue no ruling which contradicts or supersedes the Constitution.
Only federal laws which are made in accordance with the federal government’s delegated powers are Supreme over state laws.
Only treaties which are made under the authority of the US are Supreme over only state laws, not existing federal laws. A treaty cannot violate existing federal laws, that’s not within the authority of the president and/or Senate. It takes the entire Congress to repeal current laws. Under the authority of the US means something which Congress already has Constitutional authority to legislate. This is what the Founders stated the treaty authority means. It granted Congress no extra authority.
An existing treaty, would, hypothetically, take precedence over laws Congress was considering for the future. As long as the treaty was Constitutional. Meaning, the treaty pertained to the enumerated powers of the federal government.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Laura, TGY might be a liberal but we do agree on issues every once in awhile. (Yes it can be scary 🙂 ) And even when we do not agree he always presents a well thought out position and I respect him for that.
By the way I also referenced the Reid v. Covert case in my post, funny how so many people either ignore this case or are willing to dismiss it…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was joking about the scary part. When both sides claim to follow the Constitution we shouldn’t disagree on so much. The reality is that neither side follows the Constitution anymore. They both follow party platforms, which don’t have much to do with the Constitution at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know you were and so was I but you are right about neither side following the Constitution any more! Both sides are in favor of big government, they just both want to be in charge of it and the Constitution is just used as a talking point to achieve that goal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TPTB pit the People against each other to keep us divided and maintain control and power. According to them, we aren’t supposed to agree with someone on the other side. Fortunately, some people (you are one) understand this and are trying to change it. Unfortunately, too many people still are trapped by their lies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes Laura, it is the Hegelian Dialectic of thesis/antithesis/synthesis and until the vast majority of the people wake up and realize they are trying to divide us in order to conquer us it will be effective!
LikeLiked by 1 person