Fast Track Is Unconstitutional

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.

Phyllis should make the distinction that the line item veto should have been proposed as an amendment to the Constitution rather than as a legislative act. It is unconstitutional to pass legislation to create the power of a line item veto, but it could (and should) be added by amendment.

She's on point with her observations, though. The republican party has historically been disrespectful to the Constitution since the days of their founding. She shouldn't be surprised that this disrespect is still a hallmark of the party. Neither of the two major parties regards the Constitution as having the status of law any more.

Trade agreements have serious, long-term consequences for this nation and ought to be subjected to the lense of public debate and scrutiny.

By the way, I don't disagree with that. My position on this thread has been limited to the premise of this article.

We can, and have, discussed the merits of trade agreements on other threads. Interesting arguments can be made on both sides.

Sound Constitutional to you?

Yes, if Congress agrees to those ground rules. If it doesn't, then Bush certainly can't do it on his own.

That would explain why Bush is asking for those ground rules now. For a more complete discussion of the Constitutional issues, read the entire thread.

My argument isn't based on the Commerce Clause at all. And I have to laugh at those that say that Congress could appoint someone to do the negotiation for them. They already did. It's called the Commerce Department.

Congress has never vested a single individual with paramaters and authority by which to negotiate trade deals. The Commerce Department promotes trade but it has never had specific congressional authority to negotiate trade deals such as NAFTA. That's why we're having the TPA debate. Your rebuttal is bogus.

"Everyone should receive the same exact sevices (defence of our rights) and pay the exact amount as everyone else."

TJ, If there was any chance of that, I might go along with you. But, folks with money are able to use many of governments "services" that many of the poorer folks only dream about. Ranging from interstate highways, railways, stadia of all sorts, museums, orchestras, race tracks, airports, parks, recreation, and other and assorted "things" that the wealthy even ask the government to provide. Actually, we are both dreamers. Peace and love, George.

(1) Congress cuts off debate by rule on every single bill it considers.

" (2) This whole discussion is a straw man issue. You oppose any trade agreement.
That's the real issue, and to use a phony issue about the Constitution is an insult to the Constitution itself."

DG, (1) Then Congress should do the same thing on the trade bills too. If they come out of committee then it is as they normally do. Though, I personally think the committee system sucks and that all bills should be debated and amended if necessary by each house of Congress. To have fifteen to twenty legislators placed in a position to dictate to the rest of the Representatives is another aspect of socialist governments.

(2) To place false attributes to a person's reasoning is as you mentioned earlier NOT a nice thing to do. AND, actually I think that it is yourself and politically appointed bureaucrats we call judges {"the court"} who are the disgrace in that they have and are "interpreting" the written words in the Constitution beyond all symblance of what they mean including your recent reversal of duties of Congress and the President are the disgraces. You KNOW better. And judges take an OATH to uphold the constitution, NOT to "interpret" it to what they might think, on any given day, What the founders "meant" to write when the Constitution was written. The Constitution was posted in its whole the other day, and took up MUCH less bandwidth than many posts to this forum. The written words are VERY understandable, and the document very concise in its meaning. It works WELL. LEAVE IT ALONE!!!! There are people like yourself {HIGHLY educated} who actually think{?} we should have a Constitutional Conventionnd rewrite the words to fit the day. People like Bill Clinton. Peace and love, George.

[could easily be Constitutional, depending on the Supreme Court]

That's a very sad and telling statement. The myth we've been sold is that anything may be declared constitutional by the Supremes, whether or not there is any basis in the text of the document for it. Nowadays, the Supreme Court consists of 9 venal, self serving lawyers who don't care a whit for the country, the Constitution or the people.

[Congress does not micromanage the nation's affairs. It delegates it to agencies it creates.]

Excuse me, but 'it delegates' what exactly? Do you mean that, having no constitutionally granted power to micromanage the affairs of the nation, Congress may then delegate their legislative powers to departments and agencies so that those agencies may issue regulations with the force of law which effectively micromanage everything the people may do? That's what Congress has done, to be sure, but there is no constitutionalgrant of power for any such thing.

One problem with lawyers is that you boys base everything on a pharasaical examination of two centuries of commentary on the law rather than on the text of the law itself. You ridicule anyone who dares to suggest that the text itself is the law. This is the main reason that your profession is universally despised and distrusted.

No offense intended to you personally, of course.

TJ, If there was any chance of that, I might go along with you.

We were giving opinions of what the correct way to tax people is. Now your argument is that my idea has no chance, which is quite apart from the point. You didn't like the idea, in fact you termed it "one of the worst", but now you dismiss it as unworkable without addressing the question of why you opined that is "one of the worst". That is an evasion.

But, folks with money are able to use many of governments "services" that many of the poorer folks only dream about. Ranging from interstate highways, railways, stadia of all sorts, museums, orchestras, race tracks, airports, parks, recreation, and other and assorted "things" that the wealthy even ask the government to provide.

Now you are back to the envy/fairness issue. Very liberal George.

All of the "services" you described are outside the proper role of government, which is why I specifcally refered the rightful role of government, namely the defense of individual rights.

Actually, we are both dreamers.

That may indeed be true. We certainly have different dreams. I dream of being free and living in the constitutional America of the founder's dreams. I'm not entirely clear on what your dreams are other than your recurring theme that some people "owe" more for living in that constitutional republic than others.

I do have to wonder how many who are posting pro-Fast Track Trade would be doing so if Gore had won the election. The blind can not see past their own parties term. The question must be addressed besides the constitutional aspect is do you want Al Gore or Hillary Clinton to have these powers. If the answer is no then why would any thinking person believe these choices will disappear or do a Cinderella when Bush leaves office?

I disagree with much of the Bush agenda as most of it resembles much of what Gore pushed as well just not as extreme. Conservatives in the GOP aren't even addressing conservative issues anymore much less constitutional ones. They instead address just how far left can they go to get a Dem vote from the other side and get away with it.

Conservatism and the call for pro-constitutional government in the GOP is dead. It died in 1995. Only a small fraction of conservatism remains and it's mostly in the way of monotary issues. Even then when up against the billfold or the constitution the billfold wins hands down. The RNC just doesn't want to tell the survivors the truth. It's afraid they might ask for their inheritance.

Abuse of government is OK if you are the one doing the abusing.

That does seem to be the prevailing attitude. The winds of change will have them howling about how corrupt and unconstitutional our governments actions are when their man is once again not in office. Just like today all is forgiven from the 1995 Congressional wholesale sellout. All is forgiven from the Senate trial. We must defend the seats of these upright party loyal chair warmers.

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.

No not really but I think imports should bare the majority of the tax burden vs our domestic produced products. There is nothing that says we have to do otherwise Except for those corporations and individuals who buy congressional influence that make deals saying otherwise. Why should we support another nations economy and defense budgets {China comes to mind} when our own factories are closing? That's not protectism or isolationism that's just plain common sense. And BTW just what do they buy from us? Big Macs?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.