4 ms·

The President of the United States is the only person in the U.S. government that can sign and negotiate treaties. It is one of the few powers that the Constitu

The President of the United States is the only person in the U.S. government that can sign and negotiate treaties. It is one of the few powers that the Constitution grants the President (Article II, Section 2). Congress has no role in the treaty process except that the Senate must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement. The democratic process is working, you are just misinformed. The only person you should be blaming is the President.

matthewbauer 11y ago
That's not true in this case. Like most trade deals, this one is through congressional-executive agreements. That means Congress will get an up or down vote for the deal.
- drcube 11y ago
  All treaties have to be approved by the Senate. They just voted this time to approve a special "fast track" for TPP, which gives it a strict up or down vote in the Senate while waiving their right to amend the treaty or add attachments.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> The President of the United States is the only person in the U.S. government that can sign and negotiate treaties. So far so good. > Congress has no role in the treaty process except that the Senate must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement. Quite wrong. Go reread article II: the President's treaty-making power is subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. What that means is that the President can negotiate and sign all the treaties he wants, but none of them have force of law until the Senate gives its consent, expressed through a supermajority approval. Sole executive agreements -- which are not exercises of the treaty power -- are limited in scope to things the President would be, with or without dealing with another state, empowered to do through executive action. Of course, just because something is negotiated like a treaty doesn't mean it is a treaty. It can instead be, in effect, a sole executive agreement to seek a particular change in domestic law, which is then effectuated through a normal law, rather than treaty ratification. Which is, actually, how many trade agreements, including TPP (and, earlier, among others, NAFTA) work. Its why "Fast track" authority is a big deal, because it effects the rules in Congress for considering laws which are implementations of such trade deals.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
> The democratic process is working, you are just misinformed. The only person you should be blaming is the President. That's a little too quick. 1. You're overlooking the Senate's constitutional "advise and consent" role in the formal treaty-making process. (Art II, s. 2, para. 2) This is typically understood to require the Senate to adopt a resolution of ratification with a two-thirds majority. Even for a executive agreement which require acts beyond the president's legal competence, the Senate is required to enact implementing legislation. 2. Just because the process is Constitutional doesn't mean it is democratic. It is at least possible (and certainly not impossible by definition!) that the U.S. has some lawmaking processes that are not democratic.
cdellin 11y ago
From the section you referenced: "He [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;" I think that your claim that the only role of the Senate is that it "must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement" is a misrepresentation. In fact, the Senate must vote to approve every potential treaty before it becomes valid.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
arca_vorago 11y ago
Since none of the other posters have mentioned this, I would like to point out that before the latest version of the TPA, congress had the power to amend treaties, whereas now, post TPA, they do not. So a treaty is either passed or not, with no modifications, which I think is an undermining of our constitutional representative democracy. Another thing to keep in mind is that an easy way around the treaty clause is to just pretend something isn't a treaty, which I have been told is how they intend to treat the TPP. To me this is one of the most blatant power grabs of the supranational oligarchy, but I have heard a certain argument that I think is worth repeating, and it goes something like this: "Yes, the TPP enables an international and unaccountable tribunal to make decisions that could adversely affect participants, including the USA, but the reality is that we intend to have such power in the tribunal that it will just be another tool in our arsenal of national interests, and we won't allow adverse things against our own." I think the failure of logic in that argument is pretty apparent. All the TPP does is increase and centralize power to unaccountable entities while undermining the rule of law and our constitutional representative democracy. (and I'm sure it undermines other countries in similar fashion.) Once again, the real issue is that our own governments are being used against us in class warfare, and the rich are winning. Also I didn't realize the implications regarding DMCA, which I think was horrible legislation that should be repealed.

matthewbauer 11y ago

That's not true in this case. Like most trade deals, this one is through congressional-executive agreements. That means Congress will get an up or down vote for the deal.

drcube 11y ago
All treaties have to be approved by the Senate. They just voted this time to approve a special "fast track" for TPP, which gives it a strict up or down vote in the Senate while waiving their right to amend the treaty or add attachments.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> The President of the United States is the only person in the U.S. government that can sign and negotiate treaties. So far so good. > Congress has no role in the treaty process except that the Senate must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement. Quite wrong. Go reread article II: the President's treaty-making power is subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. What that means is that the President can negotiate and sign all the treaties he wants, but none of them have force of law until the Senate gives its consent, expressed through a supermajority approval. Sole executive agreements -- which are not exercises of the treaty power -- are limited in scope to things the President would be, with or without dealing with another state, empowered to do through executive action. Of course, just because something is negotiated like a treaty doesn't mean it is a treaty. It can instead be, in effect, a sole executive agreement to seek a particular change in domestic law, which is then effectuated through a normal law, rather than treaty ratification. Which is, actually, how many trade agreements, including TPP (and, earlier, among others, NAFTA) work. Its why "Fast track" authority is a big deal, because it effects the rules in Congress for considering laws which are implementations of such trade deals.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

> The democratic process is working, you are just misinformed. The only person you should be blaming is the President. That's a little too quick. 1. You're overlooking the Senate's constitutional "advise and consent" role in the formal treaty-making process. (Art II, s. 2, para. 2) This is typically understood to require the Senate to adopt a resolution of ratification with a two-thirds majority. Even for a executive agreement which require acts beyond the president's legal competence, the Senate is required to enact implementing legislation. 2. Just because the process is Constitutional doesn't mean it is democratic. It is at least possible (and certainly not impossible by definition!) that the U.S. has some lawmaking processes that are not democratic.

cdellin 11y ago

From the section you referenced: "He [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;" I think that your claim that the only role of the Senate is that it "must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement" is a misrepresentation. In fact, the Senate must vote to approve every potential treaty before it becomes valid.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

arca_vorago 11y ago

Since none of the other posters have mentioned this, I would like to point out that before the latest version of the TPA, congress had the power to amend treaties, whereas now, post TPA, they do not. So a treaty is either passed or not, with no modifications, which I think is an undermining of our constitutional representative democracy. Another thing to keep in mind is that an easy way around the treaty clause is to just pretend something isn't a treaty, which I have been told is how they intend to treat the TPP. To me this is one of the most blatant power grabs of the supranational oligarchy, but I have heard a certain argument that I think is worth repeating, and it goes something like this: "Yes, the TPP enables an international and unaccountable tribunal to make decisions that could adversely affect participants, including the USA, but the reality is that we intend to have such power in the tribunal that it will just be another tool in our arsenal of national interests, and we won't allow adverse things against our own." I think the failure of logic in that argument is pretty apparent. All the TPP does is increase and centralize power to unaccountable entities while undermining the rule of law and our constitutional representative democracy. (and I'm sure it undermines other countries in similar fashion.) Once again, the real issue is that our own governments are being used against us in class warfare, and the rich are winning. Also I didn't realize the implications regarding DMCA, which I think was horrible legislation that should be repealed.