Rant? Yes, I know Kyoto expired. I also know that many of the signatories are still living up to its terms. I also know that, despite Clinton signing it, the US never did. The minor carbon markets we had (yes, there were two national ones) never really got off the ground and, as I said, were a scam. I believe CA has a carbon market right now, but that’s a state issue and their business. They want to drive companies out of their state, they can feel free to do so.
And yes, I know that we do live up to some of the terms of unratified treaties as we see fit, or more correctly, as the current executive office sees fit. Push comes to shove, unratified treaties go out the window, as do ratified ones.
Change in the executive branch brings about change in what parts of what unratified treaties are adhered to, to the extent the executive branch has or can usurp the authority to do so.
Why do you bring up the ICC? It makes my point. Clinton signed on to the original document, but never sent it for ratification, and never followed it. Bush withdrew the signature. Bambi said pretend Bush didn’t do that, we’ll work with you, but that’s about as far as he’s gone.
As I said, it’s up to the whimsy of the executive branch, and no where near as cut-and-dried as you make it.
This is the third exchange on this topic and you still have not grasped the point:
Why would Bush withdraw Clinton's signature it had no force of law? Remember: GBII was concerned with that other nations would arrest and hold American soldiers abroad on charges pursuant to international law. It's still a problem.
Remember that whole business about Milosevic's trial? Remember how many times over the last fifteen years you've heard about pulling chief executives of nations onto the ICC carpet? Remember how there was some concern Bubba might be forced to testify, or be charged himself for our illegal war in Kosovo? These were all attempts to establish legal precedent. They have failed, but we did come close.
Change in the executive branch brings about change in what parts of what unratified treaties are adhered to, to the extent the executive branch has or can usurp the authority to do so.
Incorrect. It leads to change in how they are interpreted, as does subsequent rulings from whatever "secretariat" is pursuant to said treaty. Moreover, it is much more to devolve a power once it has been usurped. If this power comes to gun regulation, well, I defy you to determine how reversible that is.
As I said, it’s up to the whimsy of the executive branch, and no where near as cut-and-dried as you make it.
Except for the State Department bureaucracy Bush never fired. It's been continuous for nearly 20 years. So have the bureaucracies of Federal resource agencies, which now include their own police forces including SWAT teams, even the Park Service has them.
As to regulating carbon, note the EPA claiming the authority to regulate it as a pollutant only came about since the SCOTUS ruling to that effect. Although the trading market did fail (Kyoto), this government has been committed to reduction in carbon emissions since Bubba's scrawl on that document and that condition has not changed.