Posted on 01/09/2002 3:13:53 AM PST by Neets
Being a supporter of free trade, I believe that trade agreements should be passed by Congress as stipulated by law. I don't like vesting too much power in the executive branch, but I understand that there are tons of leftist who have unions lean on congressmen to stop these sort of things from going through. Fast track authority is there to avoid this, but I am sure that rubber stamping economic treaties is good thing. Unfortunately I don't have a better idea to make a bridge between free trade and union/socialist lobby group pressure.
What if that law is in conflict with the Constitution? Trade agreements are treaties. The basis for ratification of treaties is set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant Congress the unilateral authority to modify the terms by which trade agreements, or other treaties, are ratified (just as Congress lacks authority to otherwise amend the terms of the Constitution outside of the provisions of Article V [which requires state participation]).
Your support for fast track authority appears to be in conflict with your expressed preference for interpretation of the Constitution. In other words, fast track authority appears to be consistent only with a living, breathing Constitution. Do you agree?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.