I have read that opinion, it is in error.I agree with Lawrence Tribe's constitutional construct. Basically, the author of the ruling over-reaches for the commerce clause and essentially invents a whole new penumbra (where have we heard that before? H'mmmm?) with the Necessary and Proper Clause and the "president's foreign relations powers." Doesn't fly, McGee. Otherwise, it's a fair and balanced opinion. He obviously felt the weight of ruling against the machine which was already in motion, and just chickened out. And the Appellate Courts likewise. E.g., where he observes:
While NAFTA is likely a treaty, it may not be a "treaty," as contemplated by the Treaty Clause.(346) Nevertheless, I will assume that it is such. In any event, this suggestion adds weight to the argument that the Commerce Clause, coupled with the Necessary and Proper Clause and the President's foreign relations powers, provides sufficient authority for the completion of NAFTA, exclusive or not.
Glacier National Park is proof God exists. I envy you.