The defenders on the TPP: "You don't know that" and "It's just speculation". Bullfuckingshit.

[pampango]

76. That may be but it is the procedure used for all trade treaties.

In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively.

In general, arms control agreements are often ratified by the treaty mechanism. At the same time, trade agreements (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and United States accession to the World Trade Organization) are generally voted on as a CEA, and such agreements typically include an explicit right to withdraw after giving sufficient written notice to the other parties. If an international commercial accord contains binding "treaty" commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required.

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

The United States Constitution enables only Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations; international trade agreements can be negotiated by the executive branch only with Congressional oversight, and are generally considered "congressional-executive agreements" (CEAs), which must be approved by a simple majority in both chambers of Congress. Other international agreements, such as treaties not relating to tariffs and trade quotas, can be negotiated solely by the executive branch, but such treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate in order to take effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)

It sounds like international agreements dealing with tariffs and trade quotas have a different ratification process than those dealing with other issues.

If there is any leeway in this, I wonder if Obama and his advisers are giving any thought to going with just seeking a 2/3 vote in the Senate and avoiding the House altogether. Obviously the vote has to be 2/3 instead of a majority and there is the possibility of a filibuster, but it don't see Obama holding out much hope of getting anything through the House.