My initial reason says the Senate must advise and consent at the 2/3rds level EXCEPT in executive agreements that are related to an already passed treaty. Congressional-Executive agreements bypass the Constitution, but the courts have upheld it since Congress acquiesced. The problem is that the 2/3rds rule was imposed to insure that a treaty was beneficial to the entire country and not to just to power bloc(s).
The overall thrust of the article seems to be indicating that the constitution isn’t being followed, but that has happened so often that Scotus now considers that to be the way things work. That is a mindset that needs to change.
I’m sure that Cruz, being a constitutional lawyer, operates on these understandings, so he deserves a bit of sympathy from us....but certainly not for agreeing to bad deals like Iran-Nuke and Obama Trade Power.
NAFTA contained 900 pages of one-size-fits-all rules to which each nation was required to conform all of its domestic laws – regardless of whether voters and their democratically-elected representatives had previously rejected the very same policies in Congress, state legislatures or city councils.
NAFTA requires limits on the safety and inspection of meat sold in our grocery stores; new patent rules that raised medicine prices; constraints on your local government's ability to zone against sprawl or toxic industries; and elimination of preferences for spending your tax dollars on U.S.-made products or locally-grown food.
It had to be signed by the leaders of three contries and ratified by all three nations.
How is this not a TREATY?
The only way you can come to the conclusion that agreements like NAFTA and TPP are not treaties is to take the position that the Constitution as written is archaic and that in light of new realities, the definitions of archaic terms must be interpreted in light of 20th Century or 21 Century "realities."
The principle argument of those who support Ted Cruz's position on TPA is that we need to deal with "realities" and that demanding that the TPP be considered a "treaty" is not consistent with that reality.
The fact of the matter is that NAFTA was fast tracked to avoid the 2/3 Senate Requirement. It got 63 votes instead of the required 67.
It has all the earmarks of a Treaty and carries all the force and effect of a treaty.
Those who argue differently are arguing for a "Living Constitution."