Source: http://congressionalresearch.com/97-896/document.php?study=Why+Certain+Trade+Agreements+Are+Approved+as+Congressional-Executive+Agreements+Rather+Than+as+Treaties
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 00:35:03+00:00

Document:
question; the U.S. Supreme Court denied review. This report will be updated.
later extended to April 15, 1994, in order to complete the GATT Uruguay Round (P.L.
Agreement,” and the amendment of statutes to conform U.S. law to agreement obligations.
Congress’ express power to impose duties and tariffs and to regulate foreign commerce (U.S.
commerce subject to regulation, so far as this country is concerned, by Congress alone.”).
Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. v. Kissinger, 506 F.2d 136 (D.C.Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S.
United States are superseded by trade laws).
constituting more than two-thirds of that body. 139 Cong. Rec. 14805 (1993).
Court subsequently held that the authorizing statute, § 3 of the Tariff Act of 1890, 26 Stat.
tariffs as a result, and to enter into the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).
constitutional responsibilities regarding legislative implementation of the agreements.
was an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority. Kemet Electronics Corp. v.
technology, distilled spirits, pharmaceuticals, and chemical products under this authority. Pres.
Proc. 7011, 62 Fed. Reg. 35909 (1997); Pres. Proc. 6982, 62 Fed. Reg. 16039 (1997).
Comm. on Foreign Relations 76-86 (2001)(S. Prt. 106-71).
rules according an introduced bill expedited consideration and ensuring a final floor vote.
Tokyo Round Agreements, which were approved and implemented in 1979 (P.L. 96-39).
express approval provision (P.L. 107-43).
implementing legislation on a fast-track basis. See S.Rept. 93-1298, at 14-15, 22, 76, 107.
unconstitutional in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).
partners are now primarily defined by these more recent undertakings.
(P.L. 110-138); agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea remain pending.
legislation for an FTA entered into before July 1, 2007, be submitted by a given date.
treaty process rendered the Agreement and its implementing legislation unconstitutional.
barriers is set out at § 2103(b) of the act, 19 U.S.C. § 3803(b).
Trade Rep. 510 (April 10, 2008).
103d Cong., 2d Sess. 285-381 (1994).
that the political question doctrine did not bar it from ruling on the merits.
Would resolution of the question demand that a court move beyond judicial expertise?
11 Made in the USA Foundation et al. v. United States, 56 F.Supp.2d 1226 (W.D.Ala. 1999).
executive agreement rather than by treaty.
12 Made in the USA Foundation et al. v. United States, 242 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2001).

References: v. 
 § 3
 v.

 v. 
 § 2103
 § 3803
 v. 
 v.