The international trade agreements are written by ALEC as was financial reform and education reform.......all happening under a Third Way corporate democrat President and Senate majority. When you see ALEC mentioned by 'progressive' activist petitioning organization and they always mention Tea Party with connection to ALEC and not point out that the most monumental harm to US democracy is ALEC working with Third Way corporate democrats. The watering of financial reform, the privatization of public education, and now this usurpation of constitutional LAW are all happening with these Third Way corporate democrats at the leadership......they are global, multinational corporate pols!
These pols are writing laws that are designed to take away all ability to rewrite or repeal those laws that are a part of international treaty. These laws address every avenue of law.....labor, justice, environment, health care......They are saying in these agreements that if a change in law causes a business to lose competitiveness or if it hinders a businesses ability to profit......wherever in the world that corporation is......then the US government can be sued and taxpayers would be liable for a protracted lawsuit that we all know would be cost prohibitive. So, it is assumed that the US government would never change these laws that can be challenged. THIS ASSUMES THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE US WILL GIVE UP LEGISLATIVE RIGHTS THROUGH ELECTED OFFICIALS. THIS IS WHY ELITE SCHOOLS HAVE SAID THAT AMERICAN POLITICS IS DEAD.
VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT OF OFFICE!!!
Now, this process has been ongoing for decades.....since Bill Clinton introduced the free-trade agreements so a lot of law writing and international negotiations have occurred. Your incumbent and mine have known about these plans and remained silent. What they are making are super-multinational corporations that run the US, so when Ben Cardin or Barbara Mikulski and all the other Maryland pols say that they are fighting for Social Security and entitlements ........THEY ARE LYING TO YOU BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT CORPORATIONS WANT ALL SOCIAL AND LABOR BENEFITS ELIMINATED. Maryland is unique in that it has a lot of Federal employees that are centered around the Washington beltway so you only hear those democratic pols around the Baltimore region pretending to protect our entitlements. This is because the Federal employees do not pay into or receive these entitlements and SS.....they have a separate system of coverage. THAT IS WHY STENY HOYER IS THE FIRST TO SAY WE MUST CUT ENTITLEMENTS AND WHEN THESE THIRD WAY POLS HEAD THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES......LIKE HOYER AND VAN HOLLEN, THEY HAVE NO ALLEGIANCE TO THESE SOCIAL SAFETY NETS VIA THEIR CONSTITUENTS.
It is important to know that all of these actions are illegal. Elected officials and appointed representatives cannot legally ignore the constitution. Think of Egypt right now as Morci proclaims the judiciary and other government agencies void as he rewrites the constitution. IF THESE SAME INCUMBENTS ARE LEFT IN OFFICE AND THEY RIG THE ELECTIONS SO AS TO NOT BE UNSEATED......WHICH IS WHERE THEY ARE ALREADY MOVING.......THEY WILL SIMPLY REWRITE THE US CONSTITUTION TO MAKE ALL OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING LEGAL.
If we vote them out of office we can declare all contracts and agreements illegal and therefor non-binding which is what you want to hear your next candidate shouting loudly and strongly right now!!!! For the citizens of Maryland who are seeing their 'elected' officials making all these corporate tax agreements for decades with incoming developers.......all of those contracts are non-binding as well because these contractors are not adhering to any of the contractual agreements. That is why you will not see these corporate pols auditing or investigating for these legal failures that hurt the public and workers.
VOTE YOUR INCUMBENT OUT OF OFFICE!!!!
You will read below that the interpretation of the constitutional law lie in the hand of the Supreme Court. It is no coincidence that both Obama appointees to the Supreme Court are from elite universities heavily committed to this multinational interpretation of the constitution.....Conservative justices are already committed to this expansion. So, Third Way corporate pols are adding to the Supreme Court lean in favor of a Plutocracy. As you read further though.....the constitution is clear that the people and their elected officials should not be silenced in the push for commerce!!!!!!!
IT MATTERS A GREAT DEAL WHO YOU ELECT!!!!!!!
BELOW YOU WILL SEE THE COMMERCE CLAUSE THAT LOOKS AT CONGRESSIONAL POWERS REGARDING LEGISLATION. I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO READ WHAT IS VERY, VERY BORING BUT THIS AREA OF THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE WHAT AFFECTS ALL OF OUR LIVES IN A VERY NEGATIVE WAY THESE NEXT FEW DECADES IF THESE INCUMBENTS AND THIRD WAY LEADERS ARE LEFT IN PLACE. LOOK AT THE RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW TO SEE THAT THESE POWERFUL COMMERCE CLAUSE RULES MUST SHOW DEFERENCE TO THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS. THIS WILL BE THE KEY TO OVERTURNING WHAT WILL BE ONEROUS TRADE LEGISLATION.
Commerce Clause From Wikipedia,
The Commerce Clause describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). 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." Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress."  It is not uncommon to see the individual components of the Commerce Clause referred to under specific terms: The Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.
Dispute exists within the courts as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted below, the clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. However, the effect of the Commerce Clause has varied significantly depending on the Supreme Court's interpretation. During the Marshall Court era, Commerce Clause interpretation empowered Congress to gain jurisdiction over numerous aspects of intrastate and interstate commerce as well as non-commerce. During the post-1937 era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to authorize federal control of economic matters became effectively unlimited. Since the latter half of the Rehnquist Court era, Congressional use of the Commerce Clause has become slightly restricted again, being limited only to matters of trade (whether interstate or not) and production (whether commercial or not).
Rational basis review
The evolving level of scrutiny applied by Federal courts to Commerce Clause cases should be considered in the context of rational basis review. The idea behind rational basis review is that the judiciary must show deference to the elected representatives of the people. A respect for the democratic process requires that the Courts uphold legislation if there are rational facts and reasons that could support Congressional judgment, even if the Justices would come to different conclusions. Throughout the 20th century, in a variety of contexts, courts sought to avoid second guessing the legislative branch, and Commerce Clause jurisprudence can be seen as a part of this trend. Lawrence Tribe states:
Since 1937, in applying the factual test in Jones & Laughlin to hold a broad range of activities sufficiently related to interstate commerce, the Supreme Court has exercised little independent judgment, choosing instead to defer to the expressed or implied findings of Congress to the effect that regulated activities have the requisite "economic effect". Such findings have been upheld whenever they could be said to rest upon some rational basis. (Citing Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v United States (1964).)
Justice Rehnquist echoed this point in his opinion in United States v. Lopez, stating: Since (Wickard), the Court has ... undertaken to decide whether a rational basis existed for concluding that a regulated activity sufficiently affected interstate commerce. See, e.g., Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, 452 U.S. 264, 276–280 (1981); Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 155–156 (1971); Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 252–253 (1964).
Rational basis review begins with establishing the factual predicate upon which the exercise of Congressional power is based. This factual basis might come from a variety of sources. It might come from factual determinations made by Congress, passed in the legislation itself, or found in the Congressional Reports issued to accompany the legislation. It might come from the record of testimony compiled in Committee Hearings. It might come from facts posited by proponents in their briefs in support of the legislation. For example, the Court referenced extensive testimony presented in hearings in support of the conclusion that discrimination in public accommodations has a deleterious impact on interstate commerce. The Court wrote:
Of course, the mere fact that Congress has said when particular activity shall be deemed to affect commerce does not preclude further examination by this Court. But where we find that the legislators, in light of the facts and testimony before them, have a rational basis for finding a chosen regulatory scheme necessary to the protection of commerce, our investigation is at an end.
Similarly, the Court upheld a ban on the growth of marijuana intended for medical use on the grounds that Congress could rationally conclude that this growth might make enforcement of drug laws more difficult by creating an otherwise lawful source of marijuana that could be diverted into the illicit market:
In assessing the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause, we stress that the task before us is a modest one. We need not determine whether respondents' activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce in fact, but only whether a “rational basis” exists for so concluding. Given the enforcement difficulties that attend distinguishing between marijuana cultivated locally and marijuana grown elsewhere, 21 U.S.C. § 801(5), and concerns about diversion into illicit channels, we have no difficulty concluding that Congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the CSA. Gonzales v. Raich
Role of the political process Since its decision in Gibbons, the Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate only those activities within a state that arise out of or are connected with a commercial transaction and that, viewed in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce. Since judicial interpretations of constitutional limitations on Congressional exercise of its Commerce Clause powers represent an invasion of the democratic process which may not be overturned through ordinary democratic means, the Court has continued to assert that the primary limitation on the unwise exercise of Congressional Commerce Clause power by Congress must be found at the ballot box. Thus in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), the Court stated:
Of course, we continue to recognize that the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system and that the scope of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause must reflect that position. But the principal and basic limit on the federal commerce power is that inherent in all congressional action—the built-in restraints that our system provides through state participation in federal governmental action. The political process ensures that laws that unduly burden the States will not be promulgated.
Below we see that Maryland doesn't even want to know if contracts are being upheld. O'Malley and Rawlings-Blake simply put the words in the contract that meet Maryland's 'progressive' labor and justice laws and then ignore when none of those laws are upheld. THIS CONTEMPT FOR RULE OF LAW IS MIRRORED IN THESE INTERNATIONAL CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENTS. THESE PEOPLE COULD CARE LESS ABOUT WHAT IS LEGAL......THEY WILL CHANGE ALL THOSE INCONVENIENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS LATER! Maryland was ranked at the bottom nationally by Center for Public Integrity and the Government Accountability Office (GOA) for the same problems.
Report questions if Md. can monitor cost of tax breaks Posted: 3:00 pm Sun, December 16, 2012
By Alexander Pyles
Daily Record Business Writer
A report by the Pew Center on the States says when it comes to responsibly managing tax incentives, Maryland is helping to bring up the rear.
The report, released by Pew last week, says the state is among 25 others that are “trailing behind” in terms of monitoring the cost of tax breaks it uses to attract and retain businesses.
Only 13 states, the study said, are “leading the way.” Researchers found “mixed results” in other states. Maryland is one of 16 states that has not published a report evaluating tax incentives between 2007 and 2011, Pew’s study found.
The report’s authors say states designing tax credits should include reliable fiscal estimates and an annual spending cap.
“States should consistently use these two tools together to ensure that tax credits, exemptions and deductions for economic development are affordable and manageable from day one,” said Jeff Chapman, research manager at the Pew Center on the States. “When policymakers create tax incentives without knowing the expected costs and guarding against economic changes beyond their control, they leave their states vulnerable to budget pressures that are entirely avoidable.”
The Daily Record found last year that of the more than 300 loopholes in the tax code, very few are actually monitored for effectiveness by the state. Some are controlled, however, such as a credit that defrays costs for film and television production in the state. That credit caps annual spending at $7.5 million.
Other Maryland tax loopholes, however, are less well-managed, Pew found.
Researchers highlighted Maryland’s enterprise zones, a commonly-used economic development tool meant to revitalize stressed areas. There are 28 enterprise zones in the state, ranging from the far reaches of Garrett County in Western Maryland, to Baltimore neighborhoods, south to Prince George’s County. Pew found the state has not published a rigorous evaluation of the program.
A spokeswoman for the state Department of Business and Economic Development did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Some tax credits are being reviewed by state lawmakers. Legislation sponsored by Sen. Richard S. Madaleno and Del. Bill Frick, both Montgomery County Democrats, was approved by the legislature and signed by Gov. Martin O’Malley this summer. The law calls for eight tax credits to be reviewed between July 2014 and July 2017. 8 tax credits!!!!!!!! Oh, really!!!!!!!! and they aren't ashamed of that????
The original bill called for 31 tax credits to be reviewed, but Madaleno said at the time that the Department of Legislative Services did not believe it could handle such a hefty workload.
But Chapman said even periodic review of tax breaks was not enough. He cited a 1994 tax exemption passed in Louisiana for natural gas drillers that cost the state just $285,000 in fiscal year 2007. But the discovery of a large natural gas deposit in the state — combined with the expansion of horizontal drilling technology that has coincided with hydraulic fracturing in the northeast — had pushed the price tag to $239 million in fiscal 2010.
Arizona’s Quality Jobs Tax Credit of 2011, California’s Film and Television tax credit of 2009 and Florida’s Manufacturing and Spaceport Investment Incentive of 2010, were all pointed to as examples of how to responsibly cap incentives’ cost.
“Regular evaluations of existing incentives are essential, but not sufficient to prevent the unexpected costs these policies can cause,” Chapman said. “Clear estimates and annual spending limits from the outset are the best approach to avoid unnecessary fiscal risk without sacrificing the economic returns of effective tax incentives.” How can you fleece the system of billions if you are monitoring it?
Please google this You Tube video of George Carlin and his ever caustic approach to free speak. He was telling us then as is more true now that these pols are not working for you and me!!!!!
You can find it on my Facebook page.
Dumbed Down and the Illusion of Political Choice
71 8,633 43 1 Uploaded on Oct 30, 2008