[Erik Latranyi]

We can say everyone is misinterpreting the constitution but us, but when it's you vs. Reagan's attorney general it's probably more productive to deal with the reality - everyone that matters in our system say's congressional-executive agreements constitutional.

OK. Let's proceed under the assumption that this is constitutional.

You cannot deny that they are writing the rules to stack the deck in favor of passing trade bills.

Do you think that is, in any way, in keeping without our form of government?

Our Founders warned of foreign entanglements.

[semimojo]

You cannot deny that they are writing the rules to stack the deck in favor of passing trade bills.

Do you think that is, in any way, in keeping without our form of government?

Our Founders warned of foreign entanglements.

I'd say TPA certainly makes passage of trade agreements easier. I'd go further and say it makes trade agreements possible.

The reason we have these congressional-executive agreements in the first place is the nearly universal acknowledgment that you won't get an agreement without them.

If you want to be isolationist and think it's best for us not to have any regulation of international trade, fine, but in the real world trade happens and it's best for us to have some role in setting the rules.