[Mariner]

"I think, Mr. Cruz, you are the only Republican at the national level that believes in the rule of law."

I believe that is generally true and it's the reason I have not stricken him from consideration.

However, I DO disagree with him (and the USSC)on whether TPA is an unconstitutional bypass of Article II, Section II.

Ted Cruz subscribes to that recent decision that says a Treaty is whatever the Congress and POTUS agrees is a Treaty.

I still have him on the list though, so far, I prefer Trump.

[SoConPubbie]

Ted Cruz subscribes to that recent decision that says a Treaty is whatever the Congress and POTUS agrees is a Treaty.

Nonsense!

A Treaty is a Treaty!

A Congressional Executive Agreement(TPA/TPP) is just that, a Congressional Executive Agreement whereby the TPA sets the ground rules for negotiation and the TPP is the negotiated agreement. In order for it to be implemented, Congress then has to pass the necessary legislation to enable the Congressional Executive Agreement. Leaving the Congress in effective control of the process.

Myth 4: Once TPA is approved, Congress will be powerless to stop TPP or other FTAs!

Totally false. Not only does the latest version of TPA include new language expressly stating that the House or Senate can dismantle the “fast-track” rules for various “disapproval” reasons, but—even more importantly—Congress has always retained this power because it has plenary authority over its rules of procedure, including “fast track.”

The new TPA, like previous versions before it, acknowledges this fact in Sec. 106(c), which states that the fast-track rules are enacted as “as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of Representatives and the Senate,” but “with the full recognition of the constitutional right of either House to change the rules (so far as relating to the procedures of that House) at any time, in the same manner, and to the same extent as any other rule of that House.” The CRS summary of TPA reiterates this fact: “Congress reserves its constitutional right to withdraw or override the expedited procedures for trade implementing bills, which can take effect with a vote by either House of Congress.”

Such power is not merely theoretical. It is precisely what then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi did to the Colombia FTA in 2008 after President Bush submitted its implementing legislation. Her move effectively dismantled the “fast track” procedures and thus delayed congressional consideration of the agreement indefinitely.

In short, Congress retains total control over the FTA implementation process under TPA and can only be bound by the “fast track” rules if it wants to be bound.

Sensing a theme here yet?

[conservativejoy]

Does a treaty only have to be approved in the Senate? Yes.

Does a Trade Agreement require approval in both the House and the Senate due to tariffs and revenues? Yes.

There are components that determine whether an agreement is a treaty.