[P-Marlowe]

The overall thrust of the article seems to be indicating that the constitution isn’t being followed, but that has happened so often that Scotus now considers that to be the way things work.

The only way you can come to the conclusion that agreements like NAFTA and TPP are not treaties is to take the position that the Constitution as written is archaic and that in light of new realities, the definitions of archaic terms must be interpreted in light of 20th Century or 21 Century "realities."

The principle argument of those who support Ted Cruz's position on TPA is that we need to deal with "realities" and that demanding that the TPP be considered a "treaty" is not consistent with that reality.

The fact of the matter is that NAFTA was fast tracked to avoid the 2/3 Senate Requirement. It got 63 votes instead of the required 67.

It has all the earmarks of a Treaty and carries all the force and effect of a treaty.

Those who argue differently are arguing for a "Living Constitution."

[xzins]

I agree. The only way Scotus can come to the conclusion that the Constitution cam be abrogated by a handshake is for the justices first to have bought into the notion of a malleable Constitution. And we know with certainty that 4 of the 9 absolutely have bought that, and Kennedy with his newfound 'right of dignity' seems to have one leg over that fence, and Roberts' belief that justices must always defer to Congressional intent is also one leg over the fence.

What it means is that there's no hoping Scotus will pull us out of this. It will have to be defeated in Congress.

My lurker friend just sent this quote out of CFR about NAFTA and TPP:

http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790

Read the first sentence.

Then read the last sentence. Doubling down on the lie of “more jobs” the report states NAFTA will be replaced by TPP.

NAFTA’s Economic Impact

Introduction

Twenty years after its implementation, the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, has helped boost intraregional trade between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, but has fallen short of generating the jobs and the deeper regional economic integration its advocates promised decades ago. Trade relations have broadened substantially, and U.S. manufacturers created supply chains across North America that have made companies more globally competitive. These factors may have stimulated economic growth; Canada has expanded at the fastest average rate and Mexico at the slowest. But economists still debate NAFTA’s direct impact, given the many other economic forces at play and the possibility that trade liberalization might have happened even without the agreement. Both advocates and critics of the treaty have lobbied for changes to NAFTA, but momentum has stalled and is likely to be overtaken by larger trade agreements under negotiation such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.