Case law also says that Obamacare is constitutional, women have a right to murder their children and Japanese Americans can be herded into Concentration camps.
Ok, what you’re doing is trying to shoehorn fit trade matters into issues of treaties and that is the wrong approach because trade matters are not treated as treaties in the USA.
HOWEVER,
we have a lawless President who abuses his authority on a regular basis and here’s where you need to focus; this is how you approach what you’re after:
Obama is ‘said to be’ slipping treaty provisions into so-called ‘trade agreements’ presumably to avoid the Senate super majority requirement for the approval of treaties.
In other words Obama is yet again lying or at least he is ‘suspected to be’.
Why ‘said to be’ or ‘suspected to be’? Because these trade agreements are still secret. Until they are made public, Congress cannot deem them one way or the other. Members of Congress can have an opinion but no official congressional stance can be taken as of yet.
So forget trying to twist definitions and utilization of trade versus treaty. It’s an unwarranted exercise and unnecessary too.
Instead you may discuss the historical development and jurisdictional treatment of trade versus treaty. And then discuss the potential and expected consequences of Obama’s deceptive treaties that masquerade themselves as trade agreements.