I think we live on different planets. Congressional-executive agreements i.e. laws between the United States and foreign countries have been routinely upheld by the Supreme Court. These have been upheld but nevertheless are substitutes for treaties requiring two thirds approval by the Senate. My view and the view of Lawrence Tribe (proving that law as well as politics makes for strange bedfellows) is that this is an unconstitutional act. My view and Lawrence Tribe's view is distinctly minority.
These are "laws." In addition to this manner of making laws there is a so-called "executive agreement" these are commitments made by the president of the United States without authority from Congress. The Supreme Court has upheld these naked executive agreements countless times and they have the effect of "law." I refer you to the 1983 Hofstra Law Review article which I cannot cite but which you can simply Google.
The main problem with all of this is that we know it is a flimflam. Once fast-track is made law on this trade agreement, the final product is inevitably going to be approved by the reduced majority required for the Senate and in the House. We have seen these omnibus bills with increasing frequency, a notorious example of which is Obamacare. Another example: the empowerment of the federal bureaucracy through the Environmental Protection Agency. If you deny that the Environmental Protection Agency has made "law" over the subsequent decades we do indeed live on a different planet.
I decline to reason backwards from admiration of an individual candidate. I prefer to form my political judgments about candidates reasoning from their position on issues toward the individual.
Ted Cruz has paved the way for this omnibus legislation which no doubt contains environmental and immigration provisions with which the executive will make law just as the executive is making law under the environmental protection act and under Obamacare. Now that fast-track has been approved with the help of Ted Cruz, it is all over.
Ted Cruz will now vote against the final TPP and claim that he has opposed it all along.
Many will believe him.
Rather than defending your assertions, you chose to be non-responsive, and you demonstrated a lack of logic and reason.
Buh bye.
I will place more stock in the constitutional legal opinion of a man who has argued a number of cases before the USSC, and won most of those, than the opinion of an unknown person posting on the Internet.
How many arguments before the USSC have you made?
Congressional-executive agreements i.e. laws between the United States and foreign countries have been routinely upheld by the Supreme Court. These have been upheld but nevertheless are substitutes for treaties requiring two thirds approval by the Senate. My view and the view of Lawrence Tribe (proving that law as well as politics makes for strange bedfellows) is that this is an unconstitutional act. My view and Lawrence Tribe's view is distinctly minority I agree with that, and said as much in one of my replies to you. The reason your statements about all of that is non-responsive is because it is not the subject of the statements Cruz made in his explanation. I am not sure whether you are not understanding that, or if you actually have a hatred toward Cruz that is coloring your thought process here, or if you are intentionally changing the subject to dodge admitting that you are wrong.
The reason you are wrong in your assertions about the bills under discussion, when you claim they change the Constitution, is that they are not about treaties, and Ted Cruz was referring to treaties.