[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]

""Fast Track would seem to do away with the "Advice""

Guys, On commerce agreements with foreign nations, it is the administration's obligation to "advise" Congress, not the other way around. Congress is supposed to do the negotiating, NOT the final "approval or disapproval". DG, has given an Orwellian {upside down and backwards} "interpretation" to the duties given the two branches of the U.S. of A. government UNDER the Constitution with its attendant amendments. Peace and love, George.

[Quila]

"For example, advise could mean telling the president that you will not vote for a trade agreement if it includes certain provisions."

That's pushing it far away from the original intent, but as I've said, that's the direction it has been going for the last 200+ years with Supreme Court support. Fast Track is really the logical conclusion of the trend and could easily be Constitutional, depending on the Supreme Court accepting your argument, which is quite likely.

Personally, I have as yet no firm position on Fast Track, I was merely discussing Constitutional legalities.