[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[Red Jones]

bump

[Twodees]

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.

[NC_Libertarian]

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

[rebapiper]

Dems want Fast Track but can play hardball with it just to get their hands on Billions of our tax dollars. Trent Lott the turn coat Republican is now playing the same dirty deal that Clinton played. Take Billions of our tax dollars and offer it to the Dems to pass Fast Track. Fast Track is NOTHING MORE THAN ANOTHER WELFARE PROGRAM FOR AMERICAN. Fast Track must be stopped. The Dems and their Political Anthrax game is allowing them to pull off every dirty under handed trick the can think of. Congress is irresponsible and can no longer be trusted with our tax dollars. We NEED A TAX CUT TO STOP THE SELLING OFF OF AMERICA, OUR JOBS, OUR MILITARY, OUR SECURITY AND OUR RIGHT TO FREEDOM AND THE RIGHT TO SUPPORT OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES. Large corporations help fund Bushes campaign for one reason only, FAST TRACK. Fast Track will be the down fall of America and the turn coat Lott has now showed his true colors once again. Lott turned his back on this country during the Impeachment trial and now he wants to stab us in the back again. Daschle and Lott need to be REMOVED From Office. SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.