[kabar]

“Promoters of fast-track executive authority have relied on semantic obfuscation in an effort to deny the obvious: the President’s top priority is obtaining fast-track authority because he knows it will expand his powers and allow him to cement his legacy through the formation of a new political and economic union,” Sessions said.

If, as promoters amazingly suggest, the President had more powers without fast-track, he would veto it. The authority granted in “Trade Promotion Authority” is authority transferred from Congress to the Executive and, ultimately, to international bureaucrats. The entire purpose of fast-track is for Congress to surrender its power to the Executive for six years. Legislative concessions include: control over the content of legislation, the power to fully consider that legislation on the floor, the power to keep debate open until Senate cloture is invoked, and the constitutional requirement that treaties receive a two-thirds vote. Legislation cannot even be amended.

Do we really need to give the WH, regardless of who is in it, fast track authority?

[Erik Latranyi]

Fast Track, in the past, did not empower the Executive Branch to such a degree.

In the past, Fast Track was very limited.

I still feel it is unconstitutional to make treaties “easier” to pass.

It is SUPPOSED to be difficult!