U.S. formally embraces Copenhagen climate deal

Reuters ^

[Solitar]

0bama does not need a Senate —he is KING!

[Steamburg]

What a wonderful grasp (pun intended) you have on the issue.

[dr_who]

November is still 9 months away. Voters can’t do much of anything until then aside from keeping their pitchforks and torches ready.

[Always Independent]

Of course he wants to pass cap and tax, he already said he wants the money to spend on other things. He couldn’t give a rats ass about the environment. Just like he proposed drilling and more nuke energy plants. He knows that the enviro nazis of his party will sue to stop both. But he takes no blame because he called for it.

[NormsRevenge]

Uhh, What deal? That was a fiasco in Dopenhagen.

[Chickensoup]

Something gives me the idea the 0bamaturd doesn’t even seem interested in running for a second term. He mission... that goal for which he lives, eat, sleeps and breathes, is simply to place the United States onto a course to national suicide. Not a day goes by in which this marxist POS signs a document, makes a commitment, hires a czar or promulgates a presidential decree of which the result will be causing lasting damage to this nation. November 2012 can’t come soon enough. That bastard has go to go. I frankly don’t care how, either.

My sense is that his handlers will have him assasinated six months before reelection and a pity candidate will be run...Michelle might be an option...and more control will be enforced.

[Chgogal]

Bingo!

[Jacquerie]

Heavy metal thunder.

[a fool in paradise]

So when did the legislature vote? Or did the little dicktator decree it?

[bossmechanic]

STUPID B’TARDS!!!
In the face of all logic, lets right into this haunted house. Da— fools don’t even have a flashlite. Not a bright bulb in the bunch.

[fortheDeclaration]

There is nothing to agree to!

[papasmurf]

That’s not saying a thing. Saying something would be saying HOW we are going to do that.

We could cut 10% immediately with a gag order on Democraps from the SCOTUS. Now, THAT would be saying something.

Seriously, though, I’m all for a cleaner Earth, and it’s environ. To that end I offer two thoughts...

1. Natural Gas.
2. Tax incentives and EPA curtailment on manufacturers methods for reduction, especially whereas recycling plants are concerned.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The 0b0z0 administration continues along its course of damaging the country.

D0000MAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Latest from CO₂ Science

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

[Pearls Before Swine]

Question — if the U.S. Senate does not ratify a treaty with CO2 restrictions, does Obama’s action have any legal standing?

My understanding is no treaty is binding without Senate approval. In any event, it doesn't matter because the Copenhagen agreements are nonbinding, except for our "moral commitment."

[okie01]

Question — if the U.S. Senate does not ratify a treaty with CO2 restrictions, does Obama’s action have any legal standing?

"My understanding is no treaty is binding without Senate approval. In any event, it doesn't matter because the Copenhagen agreements are nonbinding, except for our "moral commitment."

What both of you are saying is true.

But there's yet another angle to this affair: recall that the SCOTUS foolishly gave the EPA the right to regulate CO2 as a "greenhouse gas".

Thus, the President will be able to independently enforce the nonbinding terms of Copenhagen by directing the EPA -- an agency under his control.

The scheme cuts Congress out of the loop -- and some will object. But so long as there is a Democrat majority, the president can probably do as he wishes.

[A message]

This guy is the biggest dumbass I have ever seen. A Presidential suicide mission.

Come November and unemployment grows the Dems will be SLAUGHTERED at the polls.

[RogerFGay]

Well, here's another example of non-news politically controlled propaganda from the politically controlled media conspiracy. What a spin, even in the face of telling it like it is. This doesn't matter. It doesn't change things. It's a restatement of Obama's thing. He can't do it unless Congress legislates it (and ultimately the Supreme Court approves it). But the article title makes it look like a big move was taken. "U.S. formally embraces" - no it hasn't.

Now, the Supreme Court has a bit of a dicey history regarding Constitutionality and treaties, so this is one to watch if it every gets passed as legislation in the first place. In the past, the Supreme Court has given treaties priority over other aspects of the Constitution. The effect is that agreements with foreign governments can void the Constitution in all other respects. This of course isn't right.

The Constitution does state that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land." (Article VI) The president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur," (Article 2, Section 2)

Article 3, Section 2 states that "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."

Treaties become the law of the land, apparently in equal standing to the Constitution. The Supreme Court seems to have the authority to decide between them. And courts in the past have done so, often to the demise of Constitutional rule. This was the subject of comments by Lord Monckton before the Copenhagen meeting (available on YouTube). He said that if the US agrees to a global warming treaty, our Constitution will become null and void, and there's nothing we can do about it.

But think about it. Is this what the framers of the Constitution meant? Obviously, really and truly obviously NOT, in my view. They designed a system specifically intending to limit the power of government - freedom and individual rights was their primary concern - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Changing the Constitution is not easy. They intended it to be difficult. Interpreting the Constitution to mean that all the president and the Senate need do is agree to a treaty to render the whole thing null and void, is absolutely ridiculous. Putting treaties in force, particularly one based on fraud, that has the effect of voiding the Constitution is nothing less than treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." (Article 3, Section 3)

War is not limited to direct military strikes. Kennedy recognized it and spoke of it when he was president. It's often carried out by conspiracy and infiltration. The act of turning control of the US over to foreign or international entities while nullifying the Constitution is an act of war, by traitors who have infiltrated the government.

Not satisfied? Well, surely you at least must agree that such acts qualify as "High Crimes" against the US. So, whether or not you agree that the penalty for such acts is death, you at least must agree that that politicians involved qualify for both removal from office and life imprisonment.

[PigRigger]

Go ahead Mr. President....implement this crap through the EPA....

....and you thought the political season started early....Ha, HA....you haven't seen anything yet....the anger now will seem like childs play....

If the Dem's in congress don't revolt on this.....well....most won't have jobs come mid-November....this is their suicide mission.....