Suppose negotiators from the United States, Canada and Mexico work diligently and quickly to reach a new agreement. However, if this agreement is somewhat different from NAFTA, it can only enter into force with the passage of new laws by Congress, as provided for in the 2015 Statute. The accelerated procedure of the 1974 Act was applied for the first time with regard to the Tokyo Round GATT agreements, approved and implemented in 1979. 12 The temporary legal power of bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) was included in the 198413 Trade and Customs Act and was again provided for by the OTCA. Congress has approved bilateral free trade agreements with Israel and Canada, NAFTA, and the Uruguay Round GATT agreements under either of these authorities.14 The free trade agreement with Jordan was implemented by law in 2001, but not under accelerated authorization status without explicit authorization.15 President Trump can certainly start a trade war with Canada without congressional approval. it cannot unilaterally replace NAFTA. In part because the enumerated powers of Congress and the President have been widely interpreted, most of the agreements proposed as treaties could have been proposed as agreements between Congress and the executive. That`s why the U.S. government has often chosen to use agreements between Congress and the executive rather than contracts for controversial deals that are unlikely to get the required super-majority in the Senate. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1992 and the agreement with which the United States became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 are examples of controversial proposals dealt with in the form of agreements between Congress and the executive.
The procedures, referred to as “trade authority procedures” in the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act (BTPAA), initially applied to bills relating to agreements concluded before 1 July 2005, but could be extended to bills relating to agreements concluded before 1 July 2005. On 1 July 2007, when the President requested an extension and neither member of Congress adopted a resolution rejecting an extension before 1 July. 2005. P.L. 107-210, §2103(c), as amended, 19 U.S.C. §3803(c). No such resolution was put to the vote. The President`s power to negotiate and enter into agreements that address both tariffs and non-tariff barriers is set forth in Section 2103(b) of the Act, 19 U.S.C§ 3803(b). The BTPAA asked the President to inform Congress at least 90 days before an agreement was reached. When the GATT parties began to negotiate more broadly the elimination of non-tariff barriers in a number of areas, Congress passed laws that would give the president negotiating credibility and ensure that Congress fulfills its constitutional obligations with respect to the legislative implementation of the agreements. Since NTB agreements could address a large number of regulatory issues (e.g.
(B subsidies, government procurement, product standards), these agreements may require more elaborate changes to federal legislation than collective agreements, which could largely be implemented by an advance proclamation by the President to reduce tariffs on certain items. On the other hand, if legislation were needed to implement the NTB agreements, Congress could decide not to vote on such legislation or to add amendments that could be considered inconsistent with the obligations of the agreement. At the same time, excessively broad delegations of powers to the president to implement NTB agreements or legislative vetoes on executive enforcement measures may not be in line with the constitutional requirements of passing laws. . . .