I am sorry you didn't answer the question pertinently.
"Any relevant USSC or other court citations?"
means has any court actually adopted your extreme view on these matters. Your blanket statements attached to Constitutional texts is merely scratching the surface. If "CAFTA DISPUTE PANELS CLAIM EXCLUSIVITY THEREBY SUPERIOR AND VIOLATIVE" is true, then it would have been litigated in some NAFTA disputes. The fact is that these panels are *not* superior if a Federal court says so. (Using, curiously, the kind of argument I cited in the Hamilton link.)
Yet I doubt a Federal court would back you up.
For example your claim of Congressional non-delegation is on its face absurd, as the FTC, FDA, EPA, and a gaggle of other regulatory bodies have had powers delegated to them under commerce clause. The limits of that delegation were address in Chandra v US (sp?) back in 1982 and in similar cases wrt legislative vetos etc.
So you need to back up your assertions with NAFTA related court decisions, or admit that this is just a wild claim that our current courts won't even touch.
(And I'd grant that Federal courts are far from originalist view of the Constitution, but you should still be able to get an originalist dissent on the matter.)
"Were they "socialists" as you deem anyone who opposes your tyrannical notions of trade?"
Strawman argument - the 'socialists' are the ones using socialist whining arguments to oppose free market economic principles that work. Some of that showed up on this thread with phony claims that this trade agreement would be 'neo-liberal' ... google that term and you'll find it in Mother Jones, Socialist Worker and other similar rags.
Dunno why that poster felt the need to use that term.
I've never confused protectionist paleo-cons with socialists.
"In fact they were all protectionists, promoting manufactures to foster national independence."
Not at all Some were (Hamilton, later Clay), some werent (Jefferson, etc.).
The key point is not what policy is best for 1790 but what is best for 2005. Adam Smith was still alive then, and his message, that mercantilism was a false and flawed economic view, had yet to be heard by all ... apparently, it *still* needs to be heard. Our prosperity is not to be judged by the amount of gold we can hoard or by our trade balance, which is secondary; the main measure of our prosperity is the amount of welath we can produce, ie our GDP.
By that measure America is doing well. By that measure, trade policies that open up foreign markets and reduce trade barriers both coming and going *work*.
For the last 60 years, America has led the world by promoting trade opening and lower trade barriers. That has fostered both economic advances and political stability (a very large point the economic isolationists seem to forget; sure you can put up barriers to central america, but when they start exporting revolution, illegal immigrants and anti-americanism, your policy of isolation will backfire big time).
I am sorry you didn't answer my answer to your question pertinently. Although it should not be a surprise by now.
You blew off not just the Constitution, which is inviable...(except I guess with you phoney free traders and the 5-6 liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court...gee what a coincidence). But case law as well.
The cavalier disregard for the People is common between you. The court decisions alluded to made it clear that the powers of the Congress...are not subject to excess delegation.
And as for your arguments about case law where there is none.... you should know that that proves nothing. A constitutional provision either is or isn't, and a court doesn't change it, however malleable the liberals try to make it with their activist construals. The nostrum is undenied: Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
Anyways, there most definitely is evidence, you just choose to cover your ears and eyes and shout, "La, la, la, la, la!"
BTW: Your case allusion of Chandra v. U.S., from 1982 did not reverse or even modify the principles of the cases of Schechter or Panama...which are still good law. The failure of the court to revisit the issue, can be laid squarely at the feet of FDR and his court-packing scheme to intimidate the Court.
Oh, and getting down to the bottom of your assertions of history, which you are woefully errant in, Thomas Jefferson CHANGED HIS MIND. The War of 1812 was a salutory lesson for him. Every single person I adduced in that list either was or became a nationalist protectionist.