Replies

I want to float some ideas, please comment if you can.

1. Posters at FR have said that a state cannot make a treaty with a foreign nation per the Constitution.

2. I’ve noticed a few things lately in the media. You can see my comment above expressing surprise Arnold didn’t mention engaging the California carbon trading market with the new one the UK is setting up...though he has said the opposite before. Also despite the word “Canada” above, every specific story I’ve seen says California is not joining with “Canada” but specific provinces like Brit. Colum. and Manitoba.

3. As for Mexico, I don’t Know what Arnold is getting at, but it is a federal state too.

4. And so is Australia. All the stories I’ve seen show that Arnold is negotiating with Australian states, not its Federal government. Usually mentioned are Western Australia and Queensland. And I read recently (can’t find it now) Australians saying they “don’t need” Howard’s federal plan. Why not?

5. Sooo, is Arnold’s scheme a way to circumvent our Constitution? Is the agenda to avoid agreements with national governments, make them with the equivalent of our state governments, and thereby this international scheme is Constitutional? Thoughts?