[justshe]

**Article I, Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to...
To regulate commerce with foreign nations,...**

The bill allows Bush to negotiate trade agreements
that Congress would have 90 days to approve or reject

And how does THIS negate the constitution?

Doesn't APPROVE or REJECT "regulate" commerce?

Doesn't NEGOTIATE indicate just that?

[Dog Gone]

Congress passes rules all the time regarding how many amendments may be considered, the time allowed for debate, and whether a bill may be considered at all. They have a Rules Committee, for Pete's sake.

The Senate has agreed in advance what the rules will be for considering trade legislation. Big deal.

The constitutional argument is a red herring deliberately dragged out there by people who know in advance that they don't like the legislation. It's bogus.

If they don't like the trade deal, they should tell their Senator to vote NO.

[Dave S]

And how does THIS negate the constitution? Doesn't APPROVE or REJECT "regulate" commerce? Doesn't NEGOTIATE indicate just that?

How does fast track differ from any other treaty, for example nuclear test ban treaty? It doesnt. They are both treaties. One dealing with trade, the other with arms.

No one will negotiate with you, if the other side gets to negotiate their best deal, then have their congress make it even sweeter.