One thing I don’t get is how fast track circumvents the Article II Section 2 requirement for 2/3rds Senate concurrence.
For what it's worth TPP isn't being considered a treaty for purposes of acceptance by congress. Like pretty much every free trade agreement it's being considered a congressional-executive agreement.
I'm not sure how I feel about this but I do know that it's par for the course for these agreements and nothing special for the TPP.
Neither did AFL-CIO. That why they sued to block the implementation of NAFTA.
That suit went to the USSC which ruled that "Fast Track" was "Non- Juduciable"...meaning the USSC didn't have jurisdiction.
They ruled that according to the Constitution, it up to POTUS and Congress to decide what a "treaty" is.
And, every Congress and POTUS has defined trade agreements are NOT treaties, per se.
Utterly corrupt. To let those being bribed to define bribery under the law lol
Of note: NAFTA was almost exclusively trade in nature. It did not address immigration, non-US adjudication of US law etc.
I believe putting TPP in front of the USSC would result in a different ruling as the USSC would be forced to adjudicate what a treaty actually IS.
Jeff Sessions agrees with me.