[infamouscow]

The President of the United States is the only person in the U.S. government that can sign and negotiate treaties. It is one of the few powers that the Constitution grants the President (Article II, Section 2). Congress has no role in the treaty process except that the Senate must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement.

The democratic process is working, you are just misinformed. The only person you should be blaming is the President.

[dragonwriter]

> The President of the United States is the only person in the U.S. government that can sign and negotiate treaties.

So far so good.

> Congress has no role in the treaty process except that the Senate must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement.

Quite wrong. Go reread article II: the President's treaty-making power is subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. What that means is that the President can negotiate and sign all the treaties he wants, but none of them have force of law until the Senate gives its consent, expressed through a supermajority approval.

Sole executive agreements -- which are not exercises of the treaty power -- are limited in scope to things the President would be, with or without dealing with another state, empowered to do through executive action.

Of course, just because something is negotiated like a treaty doesn't mean it is a treaty. It can instead be, in effect, a sole executive agreement to seek a particular change in domestic law, which is then effectuated through a normal law, rather than treaty ratification. Which is, actually, how many trade agreements, including TPP (and, earlier, among others, NAFTA) work. Its why "Fast track" authority is a big deal, because it effects the rules in Congress for considering laws which are implementations of such trade deals.

[pdabbadabba]

> The democratic process is working, you are just misinformed. The only person you should be blaming is the President.

That's a little too quick.

1. You're overlooking the Senate's constitutional "advise and consent" role in the formal treaty-making process. (Art II, s. 2, para. 2) This is typically understood to require the Senate to adopt a resolution of ratification with a two-thirds majority. Even for a executive agreement which require acts beyond the president's legal competence, the Senate is required to enact implementing legislation.

2. Just because the process is Constitutional doesn't mean it is democratic. It is at least possible (and certainly not impossible by definition!) that the U.S. has some lawmaking processes that are not democratic.

[matthewbauer]

That's not true in this case. Like most trade deals, this one is through congressional-executive agreements. That means Congress will get an up or down vote for the deal.

[drcube]

All treaties have to be approved by the Senate. They just voted this time to approve a special "fast track" for TPP, which gives it a strict up or down vote in the Senate while waiving their right to amend the treaty or add attachments.

[cdellin]

From the section you referenced:

"He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;"

I think that your claim that the only role of the Senate is that it "must be notified in the event the President has made a sole-executive agreement" is a misrepresentation. In fact, the Senate must vote to approve every potential treaty before it becomes valid.