Fast Track Is Unconstitutional

Toogood Reports ^ | December 5, 2001 | Phyllis Schlafly

[sheltonmac]

But, Phyllis, haven't you heard? There's a "war" on. We can't be bothered with insignificant matters like unconstitutional legislation. The American people are demanding that the man in control of the most powerful fighting force in the world be given as much power as possible, Constitution be damned. It is blatantly unpatriotic to utter even one syllable of criticism against our commander in chief. He only wants what's best for this country and we should remove all unnecessary constitutional restraints so he can do his job.

[Alas]

Article one section eight of the Constitution means as much to the congress as the writing of Paul does to the liberal Christians.

Alas

[Fiddlstix]

Thanks for the Ping

[Doctor Stochastic]

Actually Reagan also asked for Fast Track. Congress ought not to give this to anyone, although the Dems gave it to Reagan and Bush I and the GOP gave it to Clinton I. (Funny, Bush's last name is I, Elizabeth's last name is II, but Clausius's first name is I.)

[Dog Gone]

This is completely false and demonstrates a lack of understanding about the Constitution. Nothing in Fast Track takes away Congressional authority to approve or disapprove trade agreements.

The Constitution doesn't require Congress to negotiate the agreements. That is up to the Executive Branch. Fast Track doesn't give the Executive Branch the authority to enter into those agreements. They must still be approved by Congress. It only is an agreement by Congress that it will consider the trade agreement without introducing amendments.

Even that limitation doesn't prevent Congress from saying that it won't approve a trade agreement unless the Executive Branch makes changes to what has been negotiated.

The courts have upheld Fast Track. It is constitutional.

[tberry]

"Fast Track Is Unconstitutional"

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

[elfman2]

"…Nothing in Fast Track takes away Congressional authority to approve or disapprove trade agreements. The Constitution doesn't require Congress to negotiate the agreements..."

I tend to agree, and you said it better than I could. This fastidious rectal examination of Fast Track appears mentally unbalanced.

[redrock]

BUMP!!!

redrock--Constitutional Terrorist

[WIMom]

Let's make this the shortest fundraiser ever.
5 days into the fundraiser and we are 62% there.
We can be finished in 3 more days
and get back to our regular freeping.
If you can, come on and contribute
to the best web site on the internet.
Or stop by and help bump the thread!

---

Freepathon Holidays are Here Again: Let's Really Light Our Tree This Year - Thread 6

---

Click on the FreeRepublic eagle for secure credit card donations,

or Snail Mail:
FREE REPUBLIC, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794

Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com

[Quila]

Article II, Section 2 says the President "...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties." But Congress is also given power to "collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises." So if a treaty is about duties and excises, then where does the power lie?

A treaty carries with it force of law, so if Congress approves a treaty with powers in the realm of international commerce, it is also essentially passing a law on international commerce. That's the "Consent" part, and Fast Track appears Constitutional.

On the other hand, the Constitution does say "Advice" too. Fast Track would seem to do away with the "Advice" part (these days done through amendments, etc.), thus making Fast Track seem unconstitutional.

Also, looking at history, the power to make treaties was originally given to the Senate, and the president only added to the process just prior to ratification. Over the years, this has evolved into what it is today - an executive monopoly on negotiation.

It seems Fast Track would push the balance a bit too far to the executive, but it has been going in that direction since before the Constitution was even ratified..

[Inspector Harry Callahan]

Bump.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

DG, "To approve or disapprove trade agreements." is NOT the job of Congress. "To regulate commerce with foreign nations" and "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises." is the SOLE responsibility of Congress, and their JOB. It is the JOB of the head of the administration {The President} to "to approve or disapprove trade agreements." foreign trade agreements made by Congress.

"Fast Track" {Trade Promotion Authority} turns the separate Constitutional authority granted to Congress and the President upside down and backwards. The idea of administration "Fast Track" authority on foreign trade epitomizes the government envisioned by Orwell in his "1984" prediction{?}. Being a well educated lawyer, you MUST know that. What's the deal?? Peace and love, George.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"It seems Fast Track would push the balance a bit too far to the executive, but it has been going in that direction since before the Constitution was even ratified.."

Q, And NOW would be a GOOD time to put a stop to it! NO FAST TRACK!!!. By the way, the "free" trade agreements made thus far are NOT "treaties", but "agreements". "Treaties" are the responsibility of the President and the Senate only. Let these make and be responsible for their "mistakes" and advances too. There are only 101 of them to be held responsible rather than 436. Peace and love, George.

[Dog Gone]

You are arguing that Congress is supposed to negotiate agreements with other countries. That is absurd.

If your interpretation were correct, we could have hundreds of Congressmen each negotiating on behalf of the United States with foreign countries.

That's not feasible and it's not what the Constitution requires. Congress enacts laws and it has oversight of Executive Branch activities.

There's a reason why Congress approves of Cabinet appointments. It is to empower them to conduct the business of the United States, including our discourse with foreign nations.

Yes, I am a lawyer and I have a very keen interest in the Constitution. There are many things that the Government does which it has no constitutional authority to do. Fast Track is NOT one of those.

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

(1) "You are arguing that Congress is supposed to negotiate agreements with other countries. That is absurd."

(2) "If your interpretation were correct, we could have hundreds of Congressmen each negotiating on behalf of the United States with foreign countries."
-----------------------------------

DG, #1 How else do YOU "interpret" the words, "Congress shall have the power...... 'To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.....'"??

#2 "My 'interpretation'" is that the body of Congress shall have the power to regulate {negotiate and finalize agreements for Presidential approval or disaproval}. NOT "each" Congresscritter.

Again, you are putting "interpretations" on the words of others. That must have been some law school that they taught you how to do that. Mind reading. NO FAST TRACK!! It IS un-Constitutional!!! Peace and love, George.

[Dog Gone]

So, you would have Congress, as a body, fly over to Jordan, for example, and negotiate a trade agreement?

[Quila]

From Art. I Sec 8, Clause 1, it seems Congress gets the right to put duties and tariffs on imports. This requires no negotiations or treaties, and is often done as a protective measure.

From Clause 3, they get to regulate commerce. Analyses of this clause that I've read mainly show it to mean that the right is reserved to Congress as opposed to the states and that Congress has the right to restrict it when it wants to (can't fly to Cuba, can't sell a supercomputer to China, etc.).

[KirkandBurke]

The whole Congress won't have to go. They've got these new fangled inventions; COMMITTEES. A congressional committee can be appointed to do the trade negotiating. Heck, they can even have legal staff and trade experts work with them. ;^)

[George Frm Br00klyn Park]

"So, you would have Congress, as a body, fly over to Jordan, for example, and negotiate a trade agreement?"

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. Peace and love, George.