[Amendment10]

"Global Warming might not be a major concern, but jobs lost DUE to the war on CO2 should be."

With all due respect Dr. Sirvana, please consider the following. Regardless if global warming had already been reasonably proven by the consistent results of repeatable, scientific method-based experiments, it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to regulate, tax and spend in the name of finding a solution for global warming.

So why is Constitution expert Cruz not mentioning anything about possibly leading Congress to propose a global warming amendement to the Constitution to the states for ratification so that the feds would actually have the constitutional authority to do something about global warming if he became president?

Otherwise, Cruz and Congress would wrongly have to address global warming issues without the required constitutional authority to do so. And if that was the case then we might as well keep Obama.

[Dr. Sivana]

it remains that the states have never amended the Constitution to regulate, tax and spend in the name of finding a solution for global warming.

There are all sorts of things not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution that the courts have held to be proper functions of the federal government. Besides that, certain clauses in the Constitution can be used in unexpected ways for justification.

You will notice that Obama has gone out of his way to tie "climate change" to military defense matters. That is one of the many ways to get out of Constitutional restrictions. In similar manner, the U.S. Interstate system started under Eisenhower used military preparedness as its justification. Anything from effects on interstate commerce, international trade and postal roads can be used as justification for something like climate change. Real treaties (not the bogus "agreements" that we tend to do these days) also have some real teeth if we actually ratify them.