Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Unconstitutional?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/tpp-isds-constitution/396389/

Provisions that allow foreign investors to bypass the federal courts could undermine
 U.S. legal protections.

Under the TPP, the arbitrators will act like judges,
deciding legal questions just as federal judges decide constitutional claims.
However, unlike judges appointed under Article III of the Constitution,
TPP arbitrators are not appointed by the president or confirmed by the Senate,
 nor do they have the independence that comes from life tenure.

 And that presents a significant constitutional issue:
Can the president and Congress, consistent with Article III,
assign to three private arbitrators the judicial function of deciding the merits
of a TPP investor challenge?

The Supreme Court has not ruled on this precise question.
But the collective reasoning in four of its recent rulings bearing on the issue
leans heavily toward a finding of unconstitutionality.

The Court has placed significant limits on the ability of Congress
 to assign the power to decide cases traditionally handled by the courts to people
other than Article III judges,
 even when the judicial substitutes are full-time federal officials,
such as bankruptcy judges or the heads of federal agencies.

Moreover, in each case in which the Court approved of a dispute
being taken away from federal judges,
there was judicial review at the end of the process,
which is not the case with TPP. 

Moreover, although the Justice Department issued a lengthy opinion in 1995
 on when arbitration can be used to replace court adjudication,
 it did not then, and has not since then,
defended the constitutionality of arbitration provisions like those in the proposed TPP.

Google for more -

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=tpp+constitution

>>>>