Is It Time For Congress To Take Back Its Constitutional Right To Set Trade Policy?

[cali]

Why should the executive branch have this power which it is not constitutionally entitled to? Until 1974 Congress retained its right to set trade policy. If trade policy reverted back to the Congress we might well end up with gridlock on trade agreements. that doesn't sound so bad.

<snip>

Although Congress can't explicitly transfer its powers to the executive branch, the 1974 trade promotion authority had the effect of delegating power to the executive, minimizing consideration of the public interest, and limiting the legislature's influence over the bill to an up or down vote:[11]

It allowed the executive branch to select countries for, set the substance of, negotiate and then sign trade agreements without prior Congressional approval.
It allowed the executive branch to negotiate trade agreements covering more than just tariffs and quotas.
It established a committee system, comprising 700 industry representatives appointed by the president, to serve as advisors to the negotiations. Throughout trade talks, these individuals had access to confidential negotiating documents. Most members of Congress and the public had no such access, and there were no committees for consumer, health, environmental or other public interests.
It empowered the executive branch to author an agreement's implementing legislation without Congressional input.
It required the executive branch to notify Congress 90 days before signing and entering into an agreement, but allowed unlimited time for the implementing legislation to be submitted.
It forced a floor vote on the agreement and its implementing legislation in both chambers of Congress; the matters could not "die in committee."
It eliminated several floor procedures, including Senate unanimous consent, normal debate and cloture rules, and the ability to amend the legislation.
It prevented filibuster by limiting debate to 20 hours in each chamber.
It elevated the Special Trade Representative (STR) to the cabinet level, and required the Executive Office to house the agency.


In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that renewal of the authority is a requirement for the conclusion of Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) negotiations, which have been undertaken as if the authority were still in effect.[10]

<snip>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29

[cali]

1. I know trade doesn't have "sex appeal" but

it's as important as surveillance or high profile trials and it has more of a direct impact on your life than either.

[forestpath]

2. In my cynical opinion, Congress is just fine with presidents doing the trade policy dirty work.

It's not like most of them aren't all for anything that enriches the 1% at any cost to the rest of us anyway.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. They want to be able to play the blame game when

the agreement is seen to be a colossal mistake, as it inevitably will.