FILIBUSTERS REDUX
 |
James Joyner | Tuesday, June 10, 2003 |
Brett Marston has a couple of interesting posts, here and here, arguing that it is hypocritical for Republicans to simultaneously oppose requiring an extraconstitutional supermajority (overriding a filibuster) on judicial nominees while supporting Trade Promotion Authority and thus allowing a simple majority vote on treaties rather than the Constitutionally-required 2/3 supermajority.
Update: Here.
I have always understood fast track/TPA to simply require, like base closures, the Senate to vote up-or-down with no amendments, thus making the executive the sole negotiator. I have never seen anything that implied the treaty would also pass minus the 2/3 supermajority and I’m unable to answer the question quickly via Google.
Assuming Brett’s understanding of TPA is right, then his argument is correct. Personally, I would oppose both the filibustering of nominees and the flouting of the supermajority requirement on treaties. I already oppose the longstanding practice of presidents issuing “executive agreements” that bypass the Senate on quasi-treaties.
Update (1308): Francesca is mad as hell and wants to sue.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- None Found
- Palin More Popular Than Obama and McCain
- Country First: A Fascist Idea?
- John McCain’s Acceptance Speech
- OTB Latenight - Madness
- Caption Contest Winners
- Rich Work More than the ‘Working Class’
- Why Don’t Politicians Write Their Own Speeches?
- Palin’s Speech Reax
- Caption Contest
- Obama’s Legislative Accomplishments (Updated)
- PoliBlog linked with TPA v. Treaties
The technical fact here is that TPA does not apply to treaties, but to trade agreements, which are legally distinct.
One might consider that a mere technicality, but this is a legislatively created category of international agreement and is, therefore, different (I would argue) than merely the rules of the Senate.
Sure. I guess I do tend to consider these things technicalities, although I acknowledge that most of the executive bureaucracy is, in a sense, an unconstitutional delegation of Congressional authority. But trade agreements and executive agreements are, in all but name, treaties. The only practical difference of which I'm aware is the ease of abrogation.
I think Executive Agreements are even less powerful than Trade Agreements, given that they expire with the given administration.
Do you know if there is specific legislative authority for EAs? I am trying to remember and am thinking that it is more a traditional thing, than a formally created power thing, which is a significant difference with TPA.
In fact, the more I think about this (and blogged on it a minute ago), there is an important distinction to be made between TPA and treaty-making.
I honestly don't know the history of executive agreements, although I'm pretty sure they've been around since the days when Founding Fathers were still in the White House.
And I had always missed the two house/simple majority aspect of Fast Track; I thought the deal was that it was just non-amendable.
Comments are Closed
