[reaganaut1]

global warming ping

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

[Scotsman will be Free]

I think that he can issue executive orders to the EPA to do certain things, but what the limit on that would be is anyone’s guess. The next administration could revoke any of his silly ass orders.
A senate ratified treaty would be very bad news.

[silverleaf]

Thass why he increased the EPA budget by 35% after he took office, and put a stupid but radical ideologue, Lisa Jackson, in charge as EPA administrator.

Watch for lots more EPA “regulations”, regulatory “fees” and WH executive orders, a series of edicts will replace Congress having to vote on Cap’n tax.

[traditional1]

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

In the end, it really doesn't matter.

The Messiah and the communist bunch of Czars are ruling the country now. The EPA will put the rules out, as they have already "declared" CO2 to be a hazard. Their regulations don't need Congressional approval, and neither does any other Czar's order.

[Josephat]

He’ll use the EPA.

[steelyourfaith]

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

I think not, and that's why Obama has instructed the EPA to also attempt the end around ... he so craves that Marxist control.

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[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."