Fast Track Is Unconstitutional

Toogood Reports ^ | December 5, 2001 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Starmaker]

Where are all those strict-constructionist Republicans who've been complaining about activist judges who don't respect the fact that the U.S. Constitution gives "all legislative powers" to the Congress? Don't those Republicans realize that it is just as unconstitutional to transfer legislative powers to the executive branch?

When it comes to legislative powers over trade matters, the U.S. Constitution is precise. Article I, Section 8, expressly grants Congress the sole power "to regulate commerce with foreign nations" and "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises."

The Bush Administration and some Republicans are trying to pass Fast Track, a bill to unconstitutionally transfer those commerce powers to the executive branch. Fast track would give the President and his appointees a blank check to make trade deals with foreign countries.

This isn't the first time that misguided Republicans tried to do an end-run around the Constitution by unconstitutionally transferring power to the President. During the 1980s and 1990s, we had to endure the persistent efforts of some Republicans to impose the Line Item Veto, which was patently unconstitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court finally so ruled on June 25, 1998.

Newt Gingrich made the Line Item Veto a hallmark of the Contract With America and, for years, the Gingrich Republicans tried to make it a litmus test for fiscal conservatism. There was just one little problem: it was unconstitutional because it transferred to the President the power to change laws that Congress had passed.

In the hope of concealing the shady procedure of Fast Track, the Bush Administration has given Fast Track a sweeter-smelling name: Trade Promotion Authority. But Fast Track is exactly what this bill should be called because it will rush executive-branch agreements through Congress with mandatory deadlines, severely limited debate, no amendments allowed, only the chance to vote aye or nay, and rigging the process to evade the two-thirds treaty requirement in the Senate.

It's one thing for the President to push his agenda. But it's unfortunate that he has resorted to name-calling of those who disagree, as he did when he labeled them "isolationists" at his June 20 meeting with the Business Roundtable.

No doubt the managers of Fast Track in Congress will sanctimoniously use such arguments as "Don't you trust our President?" The response should be, Yes, we trust him to do what he said he would do, and he said his high priority under Fast Track will be to implement the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agreement, which would extend NAFTA to cover 34 Latin American countries.

When Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec City on April 22, he gave a "commitment to hemispheric integration and national and collective responsibility for improving the economic well-being and security of our people." It is clear that "our people" means all the people of the Western Hemisphere.

Bush pledged that the United States will "build a hemispheric family on the basis of a more just and democratic international order." He agreed to "the promotion of a Connectivity Agenda for the Americas (to) facilitate the beneficial integration of the hemisphere."

The Quebec Declaration is filled with United Nations doubletalk such as "sustainable development," "interdependent," "realization of human potential," "civil society," "international organizations," "reducing poverty," and "greater economic integration."

The media have never reported any public opinion polls on whether the American people want to be "integrated" with third-world, low-wage Latin American countries. The media don't ask questions when they don't want to report the answers.

Do we want to "integrate" our economies and currencies with Latin American countries, or assume the "national responsibility" to improve their "economic well-being"? Do we think that joining "a hemispheric family" with countries that do not respect the Rule of Law will give us "a more just and democratic international order"?

Even though Fast Track has not been voted on yet, the Bush Administration is behaving as though it has. Bush's U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick just met in Qatar with 142 World Trade Organization countries, where he agreed to submit the United States to international rules to invalidate our anti-dumping laws that protect our industries against foreign governments dumping their goods on us at unfairly low prices.

An earlier version of Fast Track was in effect when Bill Clinton rammed NAFTA and GATT through Congress in 1993 and 1994. Hidden in the 22,000-page GATT was the 14-page charter putting us in the World Trade Organization, where we have one vote, the European Union 15 votes, and the Third World 80 votes.

Fast Track advocates are mute about the failure of NAFTA and GATT to live up to their rosy predictions. To most Americans, the most visible result is the current plan to flood our highways with Mexican trucks that haven't passed U.S. inspection for safety and insurance.

It would be a constitutional travesty for Congress to surrender what one federal court called "the unmistakably legislative power" to impose, modify, or continue tariffs and import restrictions. Fast track violates our separation of powers, diminishes American sovereignty, and infringes on the rights of Americans to engage in the trade of our choice.

[Ronnie Radford]

You said: "Fast Track would seem to do away with the "Advice" part (these days done through amendments, etc.), thus making Fast Track seem unconstitutional."

I don't agree with your interpretation of advise. For example, advise could mean telling the president that you will not vote for a trade agreement if it includes certain provisions.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

Q, The Congress makes the laws {"agreements", tariffs} subject to the Presidents "approval or disapproval" with his/her signature or veto. NOT in the reverse as DG implies. It is the LAW {The Constitution}. Peace and love, George.

[Dog Gone]

The truth is that this flawed argument is promoted by isolationists and protectionists who don't like trade agreements with foreign countries. It's not really about how they are approved--they don't want them approved at all.

This silly argument is floated as an attempt to block additional trade agreements and to rally support against them as somehow an affront to the Constitution.

The fact of the matter is that Congress has the exclusive right to set the rules for itself regarding how it debates and passes legislation. Fast Track is nothing more than a specific set of those rules to apply to a specific type of legislation.

The assertion that this is somehow unconstitutional is utterly bogus and is intended to mask the true agenda of those who assert it.

[Dog Gone]

Congress does make the laws. A trade agreement negotiated by the Administration is introduced as legislation by a lawmaker. That's how it works.

It's just like any other bill that the President gives to Congress. Until Congress passes it, it is merely a proposal.

[hobbes1]

But Fast Track is exactly what this bill should be called because it will rush executive-branch agreements through Congress with mandatory deadlines, severely limited debate, no amendments allowed, only the chance to vote aye or nay,

Then they are stil exercising the Constitutional authority granted them. Period. Phyllis, and the rest of you are WRONG. That is how agreements should be done, 535 people making sure their pork is added or gotten, while a trade bill is negotiated is nonsense.

If it's a good agreement pass it. Or Vote it down and ask the Exec, to have it changed

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

""Fast Track would seem to do away with the "Advice""

Guys, On commerce agreements with foreign nations, it is the administration's obligation to "advise" Congress, not the other way around. Congress is supposed to do the negotiating, NOT the final "approval or disapproval". DG, has given an Orwellian {upside down and backwards} "interpretation" to the duties given the two branches of the U.S. of A. government UNDER the Constitution with its attendant amendments. Peace and love, George.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

""Fast Track would seem to do away with the "Advice""

DG, That is pure unadulterated bullshit propogated and nourished by YOU "socialist globalists". And, "A trade agreement negotiated by the Administration is introduced as legislation by a lawmaker. That's how it works." is NOT how it is supposed to work according to the U.S. of A. Constitution. It is BACKWARDS!! It IS how treaties are supposed to be ratified between the administration {president} and the 100 people in the Senate. But, these "agreements" are NOT "treaties"! Peace and love, George.

[Dog Gone]

Why did Congress create a Department of Commerce? Why does it create any Department of the Executive Branch?

You don't appear to know, so I'll tell you.

It is to carry out the functions authorized by the Constitution and by Congress.

That includes administering trade. That means negotiating trade agreements.

Think about it.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"If it's a good agreement pass it. Or Vote it down and ask the Exec, to have it changed"

H1, On BOTH the "free" trade agreements "Fast Tracked" through Congress thus far, there was NO way of Congress knowing if the agreements were "a good agreement" or not. The bills were not printed and given to members of Congress before the vote. On at least one of the votes, there was ONE copy with "markers sticking out all through it" when the vote to pass or not [amendments or even debate was NOT allowed} was taken by the members of the House. It immediately went to the Senate to be voted on, and then to the President to sign. And, as Al Gore said, "I've only had to vote two times as VP, and 'we've' won both votes." Al gore. A 90s conservative. Peace and love, George.

[Quila]

Since the President makes treaty (with approval), and treaties have the force of law, you could say that in this sense, the President does make law -- Constitutionally.

[Dog Gone]

That is pure unadulterated bullshit propogated and nourished by YOU "socialist globalists".

What did I say that can possibly be construed as socialist?

I understand the "globalist" charge, because in the isolationist protectionist mindset, any trade agreement is considered something out of the NWO. That's utter nonsense, but at least I understand the argument.

But I'm no socialist and don't particularly appreciate that accusation.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"the President does make law -- Constitutionally."

Q, Yep. But in "treaties" ONLY. And, for some reason, the powers that be DO NOT want these "agreements" to be treaties with just the President and the Senate being Responsible. They want to pass the buck to Representatives who have NO say in the matter except to vote up or down. SLIMEY!! Peace and love, George.

[Quila]

"For example, advise could mean telling the president that you will not vote for a trade agreement if it includes certain provisions."

That's pushing it far away from the original intent, but as I've said, that's the direction it has been going for the last 200+ years with Supreme Court support. Fast Track is really the logical conclusion of the trend and could easily be Constitutional, depending on the Supreme Court accepting your argument, which is quite likely.

Personally, I have as yet no firm position on Fast Track, I was merely discussing Constitutional legalities.

[Red Jones]

bump

[hobbes1]

But, nothing prevents them, from voting them down.....That's really my only point.

[elfman2]

"DG, LOL!! NO! but I would have representatives of the whole of Congress do so rather than the representatives of ANY one wo/man. Even the limited combined knowledge and wisdom of 535 people composing all of Congress {When compared to the knowledge and wisdom of the collective world} is preferable to the singular knowledge, wisdom, and agenda of a single person picking the representatives for such a mission. And, the word is "picking", NOT "approving or disapproving". AND, I would demand that public debate in Congress of each section of any agreement, and changes if necessary be allowed. The destructive {to the U.S. of A. sovereignty and citizens} of Fast Tracked "free" trade agreements thus far made by administration lackeys is, IMHO, an abomination."

Sorry, the " limited combined knowledge and wisdom of 535 people composing all of Congress {When compared to the knowledge and wisdom of the collective world}" will likely decide to authorize George to manage this trade agreement despite your " demand that public debate in Congress of each section of any agreement, and changes if necessary be allowed."

Absolutely nothing in the constitution prohibits them from selecting a manager of the process.

Absolutely nothing in the constitution prohibits them from limiting debate after the selection process has taken place.

If they choose, they could rescind the manager's authority or change the debate rules. It's clearly within their constitutionally defined authority.

In this case Congress knows their limitations and has found a Constitutional method of exercising their authority.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"What did I say that can possibly be construed as socialist?"

DG, To be called things that do not fit does seem to get under one's skin. But, As I wrote before, these "free" trade agreements are indeed socialist in nature. And, having those few in the background make policy to be voted up or down {Fast Tracked} by the people's Representatives is indeed as socialist as was the former{?} U.S.S.R. with their politburo. If you want to further globalism with my help, I suggest you use the United States of America Constitution with its attendant amendments as a base rather than the socialist idea of the few making the decisions for the whole. I will oppose the "free" traders of today till my dieing breath.

There is NOTHING free about these "free" trade agreements. NOTHING!!! Those few making "fair" trade policy today and in the past make it for themselves and their percieved "friends" only rather than for the people as a whole, as the Representatives would tend to do. And, the "people as a whole" includes those making policy today and their friends. Peace and love, George.

[Inspector Harry Callahan]

"Much of what the Bush administration is attempting is either unconstitutional or at best damaging to the principles of the Constitution."

You are correct. He is his daddy's boy, that's for sure.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"Why did Congress create a Department of Commerce? Why does it create any Department of the Executive Branch?"

DG, I may be wrong, but isn't the Department of Commerce an administration development rather than a creation of Congress?? As far as negotiating these "free" trade agreements to date, it has been the role of "blue-ribbon" trade commissions appointed by the Secretary of Commerce with input ONLY from the administration, and LITTLE oversight by Congress which Fast Track is DESIGNED to facillitate a continuance of. Peace and love, George..