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.
Your argument is a little absurd. Congress could negotiate the treaty the same way the executive branch does: through the appointment of a trade commissioner.
Your expansionist view of the commerce clause is precisely the path followed by an expansionist court to destroy the concepts of separation of powers, federalism, and federal powers that are limited, express and enumerated.
The practical danger of your expansionist view of the constitution is illustrated by Clinton who used the Commerce Department and trade negotiations as a cash for trade deal with the Chinese.
My experience as a lawyer who has actually read the side agreements on NAFTA together with the WTO agreements and Bush Sr.'s Rio Declaration is that few people have any idea what the agreements contain. Are you aware, for example, that NAFTA and the WTO agreement embrace the Rio Declaration with its radial environmental positions such as "sustainable agriculture"?
Trade agreements have serious, long-term consequences for this nation and ought to be subjected to the lense of public debate and scrutiny. The process should be transparent, not one of "fast track" as is presently the case.