He already did, why wouldn't he do it again?
"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.
This new deal covers immigration and sovereign product standards...and the adjudication of disputes in courts not under US sovereign control.
This would CLEARLY trip the threshold of Article II, Section II.
Yes, Ted Cruz has not only enabled an end-run around the constitution, he has violated it.
It can only be enacted legally by a 2/3's majority of the Senate and it's unconstitutional to keep it a secret.
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.