FT is NOT about "trusting President Obama". FT is NOT just about the TPP.

[tritsofme]

119. Who would enforce the timeline? The Sargent in Arms?

I understand that the language in the provisions is written as to be mandatory, but as a matter of Constitutional law it is not enforceable.

Congress misses or ignores statutory deadlines all the time, for instance they make an annual exercise of failing to pass a budget resolution by the statutory deadline if at all. We've all been through their government shutdowns and threats of worse.

Another possibility I suppose is that if a new majority hostile to TPA came to power but lacked the votes to scrap it completely, might more formally invoke a "nuclear option" of sorts, as each house of Congress has the absolute authority to set the rules of its own proceedings.

Now obviously Congress grants TPA in good faith and is unlikely to renege in that fashion, it would be much easier for such a majority to vote no.

I don't have a strong opinion on the deadlines in Hatch-Wyden, but if more congressional Democrats engage on TPA instead of reflexively oppose, a longer review period definitely sounds like a reasonable concession for the administration to make.