Fast Track” per se was challenged to the USSC and they ruled in 92 it was “non jeduciable”...that it was up to POTUS and Congress to decide what was, and was not a “treaty” covered under Article II, Section II constraints.
However, the context of that ruling was PURELY trade.
*********
The ruling you cite indicated that it was solely in the purview of the Legislature to determine what encompassed a treaty or a trade agreement; and thus, the Legislature just acted within its constitutional entitlement to define the agreement.
Secondly, the 92 litigation was not limited to trade as you suggest. Certainly, both legally and logically, if that were the case, there would have been no need for judicial review.
There is no stronger defender of the Constitution than Ted Cruz— that’s his history, and that’s his core.
I have no argument with those who are against this legislation. I do, however, object to those who impute motives to Sen. Cruz based on conjecture; and ascribe to him nefarious intentions merely because he is voting his convictions.
Look, Cruz talks a good game, but a few votes lately must give you pause.
Secondly, he is married to a member of the CFR and executive at Goldman Sachs. That should not be discounted.
I am not saying Ted Cruz is evil or unworthy of our vote.
But he is cozying up with those who do not have our best interests at heart.
Many castigate Walker for his words. But you cannot disparage Walker's record.
Cruz has good words, but some of his votes give us a pause.
I would still vote for him if he wins the nomination, but I prefer a results guy----Walker.