Thread by @EmporersNewC

I think I'll start this thread with a pretty straightforward declaration:

The US president does not have the authority to do sector by sector trade deals!

The constitution does give the President under Article II. section 2, the power to "to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur"

But the regulation of trade constitutionally belongs to congress under Article I Section 8.

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

All of the president's tariff power comes from bills that allow him to raise tariffs in moments of national security. The Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917 allows the president to raise tariffs while at war.

The Trade Act 1974 allows the President to raise tariffs by 15% if there is an adverse impact on national security from imports. After 150 days and extension must be sought from congress.

Finally in 1977 the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allowed the President to raise tariffs in any national emergency of any kind. The President recently used this against Mexico.

The President has power to make treaty but limited tariff action and as a result, Congress fast track the negotiation process by giving the president the authority to do trade deals based on specific guidelines through the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA).

Why does this matter? Well as Peter correctly points out sectoral agreements would violate GAT XXIV

Peter is also absolutely correct that the US could decide to flout the WTO rules, because normally, that's between the US and a different state. The US do this, the EU does this from time to time.

But it's a different situation entirely in a trade deal, because the President is acting on behalf of congress *and* the TPA requires the executive to comply with, WTO disciplines, including Article XXIV.

The President has not been given the authority to negotiate sectoral deals. That said, the act does not define legal requirements. Consequently the President could exceed his authority, despite the TPA being written expecting multiple sectors to be covered.

But he would then have to face a Democrat Congress, and what John seems to be implying here is they can ignore what Congress said and face no backlash. This is an interesting interpretation.

Especially since industries will be giving up their leverage in Congress. A group like the National Chicken Council doesn't even know if they are going to be covered by a future agreement. Their leverage is getting Congress to stop a deal going through that doesn't cover them.

There is, therefore, quite a lot wrong with the suggestion, and considering what John Bolton is a National Security Advisor of the United States, there is more substance to the argument that this is about something else.

I honestly can't see the sectoral approach flying in Congress because of the loss of leverage, and I think there are straightforward arguments, based on the president's interpretation of the TPA, which would allow Congress to take control of this process and shut it down.

/End

Going to stick this here, because Alan does a better job of explaining the Congress issue than I have, I think....