You can't modify it because it's implementing a treaty only works as an argument if you accept that the treaty needs to be ratified before we talk about the imp

You can't modify it because it's implementing a treaty only works as an argument if you accept that the treaty needs to be ratified before we talk about the implementing legislation. Is anyone making this argument? Has the Constitutional treaty process ever been used for modern trade agreements? The actual argument is that no agreement can be reached unless Congress concedes their authority to amend enabling legislation. It makes perfect sense: Why would our trade partners want to do N rounds with Congress or other nations' legislative bodies after they've already completed difficult negotiations to get to an agreement with the Executive in the first place? This is why we have a President and a USTR confirmed by Congress.