5 ms·

False. The treaty power of the Constitution is quite clear requiring a supermajority of the Senate to ratify any negotiated treaty. [The President] shall have

False. The treaty power of the Constitution is quite clear requiring a supermajority of the Senate to ratify any negotiated treaty. [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur... Fast track is inherently undemocratic as it is negotiated in secret ("no advise and consent") and most likely unconstitutional, but conventional wisdom says it is death for any politician in the US to stand in the way of legislation that "creates jobs" or "protects children".

tptacek 11y ago
I'm sorry, but I don't know how to respond to this series of non-sequiturs. Trade promotion authority is an act of Congress; it is a privilege the legislature extended to the administration. It was not required to do so.
- DannyBee 11y ago
  Congress cannot delegate its powers or constitutional requirements to the executive branch :) But reading TPA, it carefully skirts this line. The most questionable part is the no amendments part. The constitution says: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. " Note the "as on other bills" part, clearly implying they must be able to propose amendments on other bills, and not just bills for raising revenue.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Aren't there a bunch of old SCOTUS cases establishing that Congress can in fact delegate, and that the Senate process doesn't have to be followed when the administration is acting merely as a negotiating agent for Congress? As you can probably tell, I did some quick Google research, and the constitutionality of TPA doesn't see to be a particularly contentious issue, despite being discussed frequently. Got a better source than any of mine? (I can only assume you do.)
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      Honestly, I haven't really looked very hard. It's definitely the case that congress can delegate implied powers to agencies, but generally not explicitly authorized powers that were granted to congress. Here, my one concern is the no amendments part, and nothing else. That is because the constitution prescribes something. and that can't be changed by bill, only by constitutional amendment. The rest of the delegation, it depends on what exactly is delegated. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine in general, which cites a lot of the relevant cases. Note for example, the infamous line item veto case, etc. Also note: "Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the nondelegation doctrine" That is likely true in this case as well.
      - mikecb 11y ago
        More easily, the House and Senate are able to promulgate their own rules. Since the rules of things like consideration limits and cloture are not enshrined in the Constitution, but rather in House and Senate rules, they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures.[1][2] I may have strayed from your point though. [1] http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/29/fast-track-for-the-trans-pacific-partnership-accords-with-democracy/ http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/29/fast-track-for-the-... [2]Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892)
        DannyBee 11y ago
        " they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures." Agreed. However my point was: they can only do that to the degree that these procedures do not violate explicitly promulgated constitutional requirements. Ie they cannot decide to give a senator two votes, or declare that votes are decided by something other than yeas and nays, etc. This is because the constitution says that is what is supposed to happen, and you can't override those requirements. The no amendments appears to possibly run afoul of that, if what i quoted from the constitution is read the way i read it :)
        11y ago
  - cynicalkane 11y ago
    > Congress cannot delegate its powers or constitutional requirements to the executive branch The Constitution gives Congress explicit powers to set its own rules regarding procedure. Among these constitutionally allowed rules are "let's decide not to debate a particular bill the President gives to us". They still get to vote and all the other things the Constitution states; all that has changed is the procedure by which the bill is presented to a vote.
    - DannyBee 11y ago
      "Among these constitutionally allowed rules are "let's decide not to debate a particular bill the President gives to us"." Please read exactly what i quoted, which literally includes a quote from the constitution, instead of building a completely different strawman and tearing it down.
- shawn-butler 11y ago
  I'm sorry you neither know how to respond nor understand the meaning of the term non-sequitur; a clear line exists between one comment and the terms found in the next. You may find this article helpful or simply search for "Nondelegation doctrine" for more detailed analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine The TPP far exceeds the setting of tariff rates and negotiation of agricultural imports and in fact borders in several areas on setting legislative policy imperially. For those readers interested in what "fast-track" authority means from Congress' perspective [pdf] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf is an excellent resource.

tptacek 11y ago

I'm sorry, but I don't know how to respond to this series of non-sequiturs. Trade promotion authority is an act of Congress; it is a privilege the legislature extended to the administration. It was not required to do so.

DannyBee 11y ago
Congress cannot delegate its powers or constitutional requirements to the executive branch :) But reading TPA, it carefully skirts this line. The most questionable part is the no amendments part. The constitution says: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. " Note the "as on other bills" part, clearly implying they must be able to propose amendments on other bills, and not just bills for raising revenue.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Aren't there a bunch of old SCOTUS cases establishing that Congress can in fact delegate, and that the Senate process doesn't have to be followed when the administration is acting merely as a negotiating agent for Congress? As you can probably tell, I did some quick Google research, and the constitutionality of TPA doesn't see to be a particularly contentious issue, despite being discussed frequently. Got a better source than any of mine? (I can only assume you do.)
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    Honestly, I haven't really looked very hard. It's definitely the case that congress can delegate implied powers to agencies, but generally not explicitly authorized powers that were granted to congress. Here, my one concern is the no amendments part, and nothing else. That is because the constitution prescribes something. and that can't be changed by bill, only by constitutional amendment. The rest of the delegation, it depends on what exactly is delegated. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine in general, which cites a lot of the relevant cases. Note for example, the infamous line item veto case, etc. Also note: "Only rarely has the Supreme Court invalidated laws as violations of the nondelegation doctrine" That is likely true in this case as well.
    - mikecb 11y ago
      More easily, the House and Senate are able to promulgate their own rules. Since the rules of things like consideration limits and cloture are not enshrined in the Constitution, but rather in House and Senate rules, they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures.[1][2] I may have strayed from your point though. [1] http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/29/fast-track-for-the-trans-pacific-partnership-accords-with-democracy/ http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/29/fast-track-for-the-... [2]Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649 (1892)
      - DannyBee 11y ago
        " they are free to pass a law like TPA that sets special procedures." Agreed. However my point was: they can only do that to the degree that these procedures do not violate explicitly promulgated constitutional requirements. Ie they cannot decide to give a senator two votes, or declare that votes are decided by something other than yeas and nays, etc. This is because the constitution says that is what is supposed to happen, and you can't override those requirements. The no amendments appears to possibly run afoul of that, if what i quoted from the constitution is read the way i read it :)
        11y ago
- cynicalkane 11y ago
  > Congress cannot delegate its powers or constitutional requirements to the executive branch The Constitution gives Congress explicit powers to set its own rules regarding procedure. Among these constitutionally allowed rules are "let's decide not to debate a particular bill the President gives to us". They still get to vote and all the other things the Constitution states; all that has changed is the procedure by which the bill is presented to a vote.
  - DannyBee 11y ago
    "Among these constitutionally allowed rules are "let's decide not to debate a particular bill the President gives to us"." Please read exactly what i quoted, which literally includes a quote from the constitution, instead of building a completely different strawman and tearing it down.
shawn-butler 11y ago
I'm sorry you neither know how to respond nor understand the meaning of the term non-sequitur; a clear line exists between one comment and the terms found in the next. You may find this article helpful or simply search for "Nondelegation doctrine" for more detailed analysis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine The TPP far exceeds the setting of tariff rates and negotiation of agricultural imports and in fact borders in several areas on setting legislative policy imperially. For those readers interested in what "fast-track" authority means from Congress' perspective [pdf] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf is an excellent resource.