Why Trade Promotion Authority is Constitutional

Heritage Foundation | November, 2001 | Ed Meese II, Todd Gaziano

[Erik Latranyi]

We can say everyone is misinterpreting the constitution but us, but when it's you vs. Reagan's attorney general it's probably more productive to deal with the reality - everyone that matters in our system say's congressional-executive agreements constitutional.

OK. Let's proceed under the assumption that this is constitutional.

You cannot deny that they are writing the rules to stack the deck in favor of passing trade bills.

Do you think that is, in any way, in keeping without our form of government?

Our Founders warned of foreign entanglements.

[semimojo]

You cannot deny that they are writing the rules to stack the deck in favor of passing trade bills.

Do you think that is, in any way, in keeping without our form of government?

Our Founders warned of foreign entanglements.

I'd say TPA certainly makes passage of trade agreements easier. I'd go further and say it makes trade agreements possible.

The reason we have these congressional-executive agreements in the first place is the nearly universal acknowledgment that you won't get an agreement without them.

If you want to be isolationist and think it's best for us not to have any regulation of international trade, fine, but in the real world trade happens and it's best for us to have some role in setting the rules.

[Erik Latranyi]

The reason we have these congressional-executive agreements in the first place is the nearly universal acknowledgment that you won't get an agreement without them.

Yeah, amending the Constitution is too difficult as well. Let's just write a work-around so we can pass laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.

Oh, we've done that with the commerce clause already.

[jjotto]

Congress - Executive agreements go back to 1790, when the authors of the Constitution were very much alive.

[semimojo]

Yeah, amending the Constitution is too difficult as well. Let's just write a work-around so we can pass laws that are blatantly unconstitutional.

I've posted a lot of support for the fact that these agreements have consistently been held to be constitutional. What is your argument which says that they aren't? That the federal government can't legislate anything to do with foreign relations? It can only be by treaty?

Maybe I just don't understand your position.

[SunkenCiv]

• Influential Anti-Tax Group [astroturf] Okays Key Trade Measure
• Dem Operative Rallies Conservatives Against "Obamatrade"
• Leading Anti-'ObamaTrade' Activist Is a Longtime Democrat Political Operative
• Progressive operative Curtis Ellis surfaces again as free-trade attacker.