This discussion is over.
And you lost.
nathan's arguments have been perfectly responsive, "on point" (I'm assuming you know what that means), and most importantly, correct. Your problem is simply that you don't like the conclusions, and you've argued (actually, blustered and ad hominemed) yourself into such a box that your only remaining option is to petulantly "pick up your marbles", proclaim "victory" and leave.
nathan, once again Freepers owe you thanks for your outstanding efforts in analyzing and explaining the various issues confronting us. Moreover, you do this while refusing to succumb to the temptation to descend into the ad hominem and dishonest, semantic sophistry and misdirection tactics of your opponents.
As you, and others, have noted in these threads, these opponents of the rule of law (and by that I mean the original intent of the Framers, not the "let's call a treaty a trade agreement so we can circumvent that intent") and the intent of the Founding Fathers that our government should actually represent the People, have won this battle. Unfortunately, they will re-discover all too soon that it was a Pyrrhic victory, but by then it will be too late.
You drew that conclusion without reading what I wrote.
I agree, and have written in this thread and elsewhere on FR, that the administration and the Congress have wrongly agreed that this monstrosity is an agreement, not what is obviously is, a treaty.
I have an issue with at least some of those in your camp who claim that the Constitution has been changed because of that. No, it has not. And this is not the first treaty that an administration and a Congress have agreed to call an agreement.
Also, this is not the first time Congress has agreed to fast track treaties that they call agreements.
Then some of those in your camp join Dimocrats and “progressives” in trying to claim Ted Cruz is trying to change the Constitution by his vote in favor of the fast track legislation. Then, when questioned about that, they claim they are being subjected to ad hominem attacks. Nonsense.
So I challenge you: Point me to a post I wrote with such an attack, and quote it. Or admit that you wrongly accused me of ad hominem attacks.