[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.).

[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.