Trans-Pacific Partnership: Secret Gun Control and the Gutting of American Sovereignty

One strong hint is buried in the fine print of the closely guarded draft. The provision, an increasingly common feature of trade agreements, is called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement,” or ISDS. The name may sound mild, but don’t be fooled. Agreeing to ISDS in this enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

ISDS would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws — and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers — without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here’s how it would work. Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators. If the company won, the ruling couldn’t be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions — and even billions — of dollars in damages.

If that seems shocking, buckle your seat belt. ISDS could lead to gigantic fines, but it wouldn’t employ independent judges. Instead, highly paid corporate lawyers would go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next. Maybe that makes sense in an arbitration between two corporations, but not in cases between corporations and governments. If you’re a lawyer looking to maintain or attract high-paying corporate clients, how likely are you to rule against those corporations when it’s your turn in the judge’s seat?

If the tilt toward giant corporations wasn’t clear enough, consider who would get to use this special court: only international investors, which are, by and large, big corporations. So if a Vietnamese company with U.S. operations wanted to challenge an increase in the U.S. minimum wage, it could use ISDS. But if an American labor union believed Vietnam was allowing Vietnamese companies to pay slave wages in violation of trade commitments, the union would have to make its case in the Vietnamese courts.

How can a secret trade deal negotiated by President Obama affect the Second Amendment right of all law-abiding Americans to own and use firearms for hunting, shooting and self-defense?

Plenty according to GOA, a gun rights organization that boasts over 300,000 members. In an article published on its website, GOA reminds its’ members:

“Will UN-style gun control be rammed down our throats?” And what about “Gun import bans … Microstamping of firearms … Ammunition bans … The full implementation of the anti-gun UN Arms Trade Treaty … Illegal amnesty which locks in millions of new, anti-gun voters.”

“And this agreement DOESN’T need two-thirds vote in the Senate, as a treaty would. When completed, the agreement is merely subject to a majority vote in both Houses … it can’t be filibustered … it can’t be amended … and the GOP can’t refuse to consider it.”

GOA leaders point to another “approve now, read later” law that Congress passed called the Cromnibus bill in December 2014. Congress blindly passed it without closely reviewing it and only learned later that:

The law included “the largest funding increase in history for the federal gun database,” as well as regulations empowering “states to impose gun bans based on doctor’s orders.”

Michael Hammond, legislative counsel with Gun Owners of America, asked World Net Daily this rhetorical question in an interview:

“Republicans whine about Obama usurping legislative authority, so why in heaven’s name are they thinking of giving him unlimited legislative authority to do anything he can put into a trade agreement?”

Yet Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Orrin Hatch support this approach regardless. They argue that it permits “Congress to set goals for an agreement that Obama administration will negotiate.”

Ryan and Hatch think the legislation will box in Obama on what he can and can’t negotiate in a trade deal but these assurances didn’t impress Hammond who pointed out that:

“…the Obama administration has already been negotiating the TransPacific Partnership for six years without any congressional input. So what in the world makes them think that he cares even an iota about their “goals”?

“I don’t think it’s wise to allow Obama to promulgate any law he wants as long as he succeeds in sticking it in this agreement and then gets Congress’ assent on an up or down vote without any possibility for amendment.”

Moments ago, in an embarrassing setback for the president, Senate Democrats in a 52-45 vote – short of the required 60 supporters – blocked a bill that would give President Barack Obama fast-track authority to expedite trade agreements through Congress, a major defeat for Obama and his allies who “say the measure is necessary to complete a 12-nation Pacific trade deal that is a centerpiece of the administration’s economic agenda.”

The passage failed after a leading pro-trade Democrat said he would oppose the bill: Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he would vote no and his loss was a major blow to hopes of attracting a sufficient number Democrats to get 60 “yes” votes in the chamber.

According to Reuters, the Senate vote was one of a series of obstacles to be overcome that hinged on the support of a handful of Democrats. The White House has launched a campaign blitz directed at them in support of granting the president authority to speed trade deals through Congress.

Fast-track legislation gives lawmakers the right to set negotiating objectives but restricts them to a yes-or-no vote on trade deals such as the TPP, a potential legacy-defining achievement for Obama.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, hoping to shore up support, reminded his fellow senators that Tuesday’s vote simply would pave the way for debating fast-track legislation.

The WSJ cites Mitch McConnell who told reporters shortly before the vote, which he expected to lose, that “This issue’s not over” adding that “I’m hopeful we’ll put this in the win column for the country sometime soon.”