Reid Publicly Opposes Fast-Track Authority for Obama

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Fast track is clearly unconstitutional.

It's perfectly constitutional. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All fast track does is establish a rule to be used for consideration of a trade deal negotiated by the executive branch.  Congress still needs to vote to accept it in order for it to become law.  Now if the trade deal would become law unless Congress voted to reject it, then that would be unconstitutional, but that is not what fast-track trade authority confers.  All fast-track does is stipulate that when Congress considers the deal the executive has negotiated, it will give it a simple up or down vote without any amendments being considered.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Fast track is clearly unconstitutional.

It's perfectly constitutional. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

All fast track does is establish a rule to be used for consideration of a trade deal negotiated by the executive branch.  Congress still needs to vote to accept it in order for it to become law.  Now if the trade deal would become law unless Congress voted to reject it, then that would be unconstitutional, but that is not what fast-track trade authority confers.  All fast-track does is stipulate that when Congress considers the deal the executive has negotiated, it will give it a simple up or down vote without any amendments being considered.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

So?  Fast-track authority doesn't impinge on that clause.  It still takes two-thirds of the senate to approve a treaty.  Of course the rule under which a the treaty will be considered is still subject to the usual majority approval of the Senate, which is why it only takes a majority of the Senators present to give Senate approval for fast-track.  Also, it is well-established that treaties often include provisions that are not self-enabling, especially if they require money to be spent from the public fisc.  Hence the legislation needed to make a treaty work requires the usual bicameral majority in both houses. That's why the House also is involved in the granting of fast-track.

The most recent Fast Track bill, the 2002 one, which has since expired had 34 Senators vote against it. A treaty with over 1/3rds of Senators voting against it is clearly not valid. Hopefully SCOTUS wakes the hell up and throws out everything passed under fast track as unconstitutional.

As I pointed out, fast-track authority is NOT a treaty.  It is a legislative rule for the consideration of a diplomatic agreement by Congress.  As such the rule only requires the usual majority to pass. If a portion of the agreement is a treaty, then when the vote is later taken on the negotiated agreement that part still requires a two-third vote of the Senate alone.  If a portion is ordinary legislation, then it still requires a majority vote of both houses.