1. Procedural. a) Fast-track reduces the supermajority of two thirds of the Senate for the approval of a treaty to 50% plus one in the house and 50% plus one in the Senate for a so-called congressional-executive agreement; b) This objection says that it is improper to evade a constitutional mandate of two thirds Senate approval simply by changing the label from a "treaty" to a "deal"; c) the time for the "world's greatest deliberative body" to deliberate about the bill is limited from unlimited to 60 days; d) the negotiations are conducted in secret except that those who are cronies of the administration have access but congressmen and senators have only limited access and are sworn to secrecy; e) rulemaking and lawmaking authority will occur outside of the Constitution reaches of the United States.
2. Substantive: a) trade deals have cause more harm to America than good. They have hollowed out the manufacturing sector, cost Americans millions of manufacturing and nonmanufacturing jobs, they promote off-shoring of American jobs, b) and they are unfair because of the relative disparities among nations in wages, environmental regulations, taxing levels and currencies. c) To the degree that they produce wealth and jobs in America by promoting exports, that wealth and those jobs are limited to favored cronies of Washington and does not trickle down to the middle-class. d) it is feared that the trade deals are loaded with environmental regulations which will not have been approved post-facto by the American Congress but which will be promulgated in the future by international bodies and which will be required to be adhered to by Americans without resort to American courts and due process or to their own elected representatives for redress of grievances.
3. Sovereignty: a) the international tribunals to be established by the Pacific Rim agreement will have the power to affect the rights of corporations and individuals in America and will deprive these entities of their constitutional right to due process in an American court; b) Lawmaking power will be moved offshore; c) American courts will be superseded by offshore tribunals; d) the entire system of American liberty based on separation of powers and checks and balances will be set to naught leading to tyranny; e) treaties and laws made pursuant to them are (congressional-executive agreements?) the supreme law of land and handy tools for a tyrant to circumvent separation of powers, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, the federal system; f) contrary to the statements of Ted Cruz and contrary to the author's analysis of Medellin vs. Texas, it is not at all clear that treaties, congressional-executive agreements or even naked executive agreements are subject to voiding as repugnant to American law or Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas) see also: (1983 Hofstra Law Review article by Hyman especially the following footnote enumerating cases in which Executive agreements have been upheld:
4. E.g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) (agreement by President Carter providing for settlement of claims of American nationals against Iran held valid); United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942) (Litvinov agreement, assigning to United States all claims of Soviet Russia against American nationals, superceded conflicting state laws); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937) (Litvinov agreement upheld); J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928) (agreement authorized by tariff legislation upheld); B. Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583 (1912) (agreement made pursuant to Tariff Act of 1897 held a "treaty" for purpose of direct appeal under § 5 of Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891); Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. United States, 169 F. Supp. 268 (Cust. Ct. 1958), aftd, 275 F.2d 472 (C.C.P.A. 1959) (agreement authorized by tariff legislation held valid); Guerra v. Guajardo, 466 F. Supp. 1046 (S.D. Tex. 1978) (agreement providing for mutual assistance between customs services of the United States and the United Mexican States upheld); Dole v. Carter, 444 F. Supp. 1065 (D. Kan. 1977) (agreement between United States and Hungary returning Hungarian coronation regalia upheld); Louis Wolf & Co. v. United States, 107 F.2d 819 (C.C.P.A. 1939) (United States-Cuban trade agreement held a "commercial convention" for purpose of treaties with Norway and Austria).
4. Political: a) the negotiations are being conducted in secret by a radical Marxist determined to "transform" America who has a record of deceit and a record of bypassing the Constitution, the Congress, and the will of the people; b) his association with Obamacare and the Environmental Protection Agency to name just two demonstrates a penchant for omnibus legislation which invests the bureaucracy with legislative, interpretive, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory powers and that suggests he will resort to these devices on an international level; c) Obama has demonstrated a willingness to engage in crony capitalism to serve his political financial needs and to advance his radical agendas such as environmentalism; d) Obama is conducting negotiations in secret except that his cronies are evidently fully informed and history suggests they, in turn, have his ear; e) resorting to his phone and his pen, Obama has demonstrated a penchant for usurping powers of co-equal branches and suggests he will do so in arbitrary enforcement of trade provisions; f) Obama has corrupted the Department of Justice and is likely to do so respecting enforcement of trade provisions; g) Republicans for their part have shown no disposition to intervene against Obama on behalf of the middle class on issues like Obamacare, spending, taxes, immigration etc. rather they have by deed betrayed their word and enabled Obama's schemes and debate K St. and Wall Street hence they are unreliable firewalls; h) no fast-track treaty scheme has ever failed to pass Congress rendering the safeguard of congressional scrutiny of Obama's deal illusory.
