A President’s Global Warming Treaty Tyranny

Canada Free Press ^ | 08/28/14 | Arnold Ahlert

[Sean_Anthony]

Submitting the U.S. to the international community’s will — without the consent of Congress

In yet another demonstration of contempt for the Constitution, President Obama and his administration are pursuing what the New York Times characterizes as a “sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions”—absent any input from Congress.

The Constitution requires a two-thirds majority approval by the Senate to ratify any legally binding treaty. The Obama administration plans to sidestep that requirement by calling the agreement a “politically binding” deal that would substitute for an actual treaty. It would consist of voluntary pledges, combined with obligations from a 1992 U.N. treaty known as the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control. That 22-year-old agreement was reached at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The U.S. Senate ratified the agreement on October 7, 1992, and President Bush Sr. signed it six days later, making it legally binding.

[scooby321]

see you in Court

[chris37]

Well, until Americans stand up for their representative government, we are going to have a tyrant.

The people of this country are flat out allowing this.

That is all there is to it.

[rktman]

So, the “treaty” fails to get 2/3 for RATification. The epa simply absorbs the initiatives, issues even more stringent rules, regs and requirements with the weight of law and viola. Hey. Pen and phone. UN appeased. Somebody PUHLEEEZ defund these asshats.

[rockinqsranch]

I realize I have been popping in and out of here lately due many activities going on here at the ranch, but it seems to me the GOP has been very quiet lately relative to the news.

[nathanbedford]

What the hell did Bush sign?

[Grampa Dave]

[WaterWeWaitinFor]

but it seems to me the GOP has been very quiet lately relative to the news.”

This sure is an understatement. Where the h e double hockey sticks ARE the Republicans? Reince P used to be good in Wisconsin when he was here, but since he's gone to the dark side in DC, he rolls over and is nonexistent. I have weary fingers from dialing Reps and Senators to complain about how they are MISSING IN ACTION. The debacle in Mississippi hacked off more than a couple of conservatives.

I do not see any “wave” of excitement over November, I see the good peeps losing in state after state - look at Alaska. THAT should be a shoe in. What's going on in Kansas? What about Cochran, will the voters vote in the Dem because they're hacked off? The Karl Marx Rove types in DC are milk toast, the no chin McConnell hasn't been seen in months, nor heard from, Boo hoo Bonehead should be in AA......... Those of us who work the phones, knock on doors for local elections are being stomped on. The Dems never give up, never let up the lies and fraud votes.

This is very frustrating. Guess we need to light up the phone lines. What else, folks? It's not too late, but we need to garner momentum like in 2010. Oh wait...... Lois might be knocking on your door....

[mosesdapoet]

Now the the regime has been completely assured no attempt to impeach will be made because it was reinforced through their creation of the Ferguson riots. Which cemented the racial divide. The democrats can now move headlong onto their other socialist one world programs and the reconstruction of American society and culture.

[pfony1]

hmmm....

“Politically” binding...?

Does that mean that DEMOCRATS are no longer able to use jet airplanes, air-conditioning or SUVs?

But everyone else can?

I can “live” with that...

[Captain7seas]

“So, the “treaty” fails to get 2/3 for RATification. The epa simply absorbs the initiatives, issues even more stringent rules, regs and requirements with the weight of law and viola. Hey. Pen and phone. UN appeased”

There was ANOTHER UN treaty that came out of the 1992 rats nest Earth Summit: The Convention on Biodiversity aka the Agenda 21 treaty. The Senate refused to even vote on it when they were shown maps of The Wildlands Project depicting the goal of half the United States off limits to human activity. Clinton issued an Ex Order directing it be incorporated into domestic policy.
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/05/how-bill-clinton-forced-agenda-21-on.html

[rktman]

Yup. I have at least a semblance of knowledge about a21. Kinda like the world heritage sites BS out of the useless nations on the Hudson.

[Billthedrill]

Anything that can be “binding” by executive action can be “unbound” by executive action. Someday we may have a Republican President with the guts to actually do that, but it doesn’t look like it’s imminent.

[Amendment10]

Thank you for referencing that article Sean_Anthony. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

As mentioned in related threads, even if the president had the support of the Senate concerning climate issues for treaty negotiation, it remains that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to address climate issues.

In fact, not only Thomas Jefferson, who had been president of the Senate, but also the Supreme Court had clarified that the feds cannot use their constitutional power to negotiate treaties as a back door to creating new federal government powers which the states have never delegated to the feds expressly via the Constitution.

• “In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

• “Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” — Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812 .

• “2. Insofar as Art. 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for the military trial of civilian dependents accompanying the armed forces in foreign countries, it cannot be sustained as legislation which is “necessary and proper” to carry out obligations of the United States under international agreements made with those countries, since no agreement with a foreign nation can confer on Congress or any other branch of the Government power which is free from the restraints of the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Reid v. Covert, 1956 .