By ratifying a treaty based on politically correct junk science (imo), the very corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate is wrongly trying to expand the powers of the already unconstitutionally big federal government.
International study destroys hoax of 'climate emergency' 'No evidence in the record to date' (9.21.22)
A Brief History of Fantastically Wrong Climate Change Predictions (4.24.17)
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Consider that Thomas Jefferson had first used his uncommon common sense as Secretary of State, then later his experience as president of the Senate, to point out that treaties cannot be used as backdoor to bypass the Constitution's Article V process for giving new powers to the fedreal government.
“In giving to the President and Senate a power to make treaties, the Constitution meant only to authorize them to carry into effect, by way of treaty, any powers they might constitutionally exercise.” —Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.
“Surely the President and Senate cannot do by treaty what the whole government is interdicted from doing in any way.” — Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1812 .
The Supreme Court later reflected Jefferson's words with the following clarification concerning the Senate abusing its power to confirm treaties.
"The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution." —Reid v. Covert, 1957.
Trump supporters in both Republican and Democratic parties need to vote Republican in November.
I agree that treaties concerning “climate emergencies” are likely to be overreactions or lies. But we should not necessarily deem a treaty “unconstitutional” because it contains terms not in use in the 18th century, like “nuclear accident.” It might be better to include terms that would be understood in both centuries in future proposed treaties like “...or threat to public safety.”