Every other nation who has signed off on this "agreement" refers to the "agreement" as a "treaty."
So the other countries are entering into a "treaty" and the United States is entering into a "trade agreement."
OK, so after the Supreme Court rulings and literally dozens of congressional-executive trade agreements that haven't been overturned, or even challenged, how do we proceed? In the framers vision of our republic who makes the call on constitutionality?
Honesty makes the call semimojo.
We know that an agreement between nations is a ‘treaty’. If legislators use legislative sleight-of-hand to circumvent that, then all we can do is speak the truth clearly. They intentionally bypassed the Constitution to do what they wanted.
We proceed by telling our congresscritters to follow the Constitution and treat these treaties as treaties and put them before the Senate for a 2/3 approval.
In the framers vision of our republic who makes the call on constitutionality?
Ultimately you as a member of that special group of people called WE THE PEOPLE get to determine the constitutionality of laws. The Framers never intended that the Supreme Court would have the final say on these matters but that power was usurped in Marbury v. Madison. What we need to preserve the Constitution is a moral people and honest representatives. Right now we have neither.
Having said that, do you think calling a treaty a Trade Agreement in order to avoid the 2/3 Senate approval process is either moral or honest?
I certainly don't.