but the challenge would have to be either that it's unconstitutional in some way, or that the proper procedures weren't followed in passing it. What makes a challenge difficult is that we aren't allowed to know what all is in the damn thing. The challenger would also have to establish standing to sue; that is, an actual injury resulting from the implementation of the statute.

We could sue until the cows come home, the home of Citizens United will protect the masters at all costs. We. Are. Truly. Fucked!

The TPP does not allow for the First Amendment right of citizens to petition the government for redress of grievances.

By definition, the Constitution is supreme over any other federal or state law.

... in the way that it tries to redefine what the constitution has held in the past that something like the TPP should be considered a "treaty" and therefore subject to the requirements for passing a treaty. If not, then we should have a constitutional amendment to change those terms to make it work more "practically" today the way those that put in place these "fast track" laws claim is necessary. But having it just passed in congress in stealth and with a bought congress like the TPA just was in my book IS unconstitutional!

The problem is that we need a new non-corporate SCOTUS majority to be in place so that if it gets pushed up to that level, they will rule on it the correct way and overturn this mess. SCOTUS will ignore and not hear appeals if the decisions in lower courts are in favor of the TPA, and will overturn them if it is against it. Another reason to elect Bernie Sanders as president to change who's on the Supreme Court at some point to get a new court majority to rule differently on such appeals.