Posted on 11/17/2009 6:38:41 AM PST by Typical_Whitey
US President Barack Obama came to office promising hope and change. But on climate change, he has followed in the footsteps of his predecessor George W. Bush. Now, should the climate summit in Copenhagen fail, the blame will lie squarely with Obama.
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
Better late than never I 'spose, huh? LOL
> Perhaps you are right. Would you care to elaborate? I heard the same from Lord Monckton when I saw him speak earlier this month. Obama is MORE than willing to exploit loopholes (like is a dual-citizen a "Natural Born Citizen") in the Constitution. Do we REALLY beleive that Pelosi and Reid would stand up and say, "NO"?! From Carry's link (sorry for the long read, but stuff like this is verbose): Patrick Henry, Ratified - The Treaty Power, Its Perils and Portents:
Article 11 The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty may be expressed by signature, exchange of instruments constituting a treaty, ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, or by any other means if so agreed.
So far, no problem. The USA has never agreed to such a means... has it? Read on,
Article 12 Consent to be bound by a treaty expressed by signature 1. The consent of a State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by the signature of its representative when: (a) the treaty provides that signature shall have that effect; (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States were agreed that signature should have that effect; or
Just who would make that determination and how, it just doesnt say. And if that wasnt enough:
(c) the intention of the State to give that effect to the signature appears from the full powers of its representative or was expressed during the negotiation.
You mean, the negotiators could get drunk, be paid off, have a bad day, or suffer a lapse in speech and whatever they agreed to would be the Supreme Law of the Land? Effectively, even if the document does not state that it is binding upon signature, one can always produce witnesses from the UN to will claim that the negotiators had "consented" to it.
2.For the purposes of paragraph 1: (a) the initialling of a text constitutes a signature of the treaty when it is established that the negotiating States so agreed; (b) the signature ad referendum of a treaty by a representative, if confirmed by his State, constitutes a full signature of the treaty.
How does it feel to know such weasel words have been the Supreme Law of the Land for forty years and yet not one President, Republican or Democrat, has breathed a word about this beast? How then could it be truly "binding"; this must be some sort of hyperbole. By binding the UN means that the signatory government agrees not to do anything in conflict with the goals and spirit of the treaty pending ratification. Is there an enforcement process, no, but such is in the works via mechanisms such as the World Trade Organization and the Bank for International Settlements. Now you know why George Bushs administration was instituting programs to cut greenhouse gas emissions despite the fact that the Senate had rejected the Kyoto Protocols 98-0, Clinton had signed it. Now you know why we see subspecies (simple variants on a species similar to differences in hair color in people) listed as endangered despite the fact that the Senate rejected the Global Biodiversity Treaty. Clinton had signed it. I dont want to tell you what youll see from schools and Child Protective Services should the Rights of the Child Treaty be fully incorporated, but its most elegant feature is that children have the right to grow up in a gun free community which of course means that only criminals and police will have them. Charming, isnt it? But this Article was to be About Copenhagen and Global Warming;
|
The incompetent one.
The great divider accidentally got something right.
I realize that he is choosing his battles carefully, and he's no dummy.
Top of his agenda: distribute the wealth; tax opponents into impotence, that's goal #1.
I'll take whatever I can get.
Got to give him credit for that.
AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming
See my tagline ;)
Exactly the opinion I was hoping to see.
He acts and speaks like he has dictator powers where he can enter into wild and extreme international treaties w/o the approval of the Senate. He a lofty thing not quite in touch with reality.
Well said. Sadly people that think that our enactment laws will protect us are not paying attention to the radical corrupt back-door deals.
Besides... name anything Obama cannot get away with. The proof that is in the pudding is; no one calls Obama to the carpet for anything. Because he is immune under the guise of history; being the first black man as POTUS. Obama’s race card leaves him immune to; I will juncture to guess... anything.
If Obama came on LIVE TV right now and said the radical islam call to jihad in full perfect Arabic WHAT would our media do?
If Obama came on LIVE TV right now and released all of the 9/11 terrorists because they were not read their Miranda rights and they were tortured under the bad,boogeyman Bush/Cheney/CIA. What would our media do?
If Obama shot-down a terrorist act on an Army base to be investigated by congress and never spoke about it again yet continued to focus on the rights of 9/11 terrorists’. What would our media do?
I assume FreeRepublic has a blanket policy: No story pairing the words “Obama” and “failed” belongs in Breaking News.
Agreed. See my last few posts.
Too lazy to click the link I gave you?
Read it. I wrote it.
-10nobama can sign this POS pact until he's blue in the face. Don't mean a thang unless 2/3 of the Senate (which he won't get, even with all the frigging RINOS) approves.
They will postpone his peace podium announcement until the deal is done. China gave Obama his orders watch what he does and it will be a done deal.
Let’s hope so
AGW theory is one of the biggest cluster f***s I've ever seen by supposedly smart scientists. Some people have really gone out on a limb on this theory and the limb is about to be sawed off by the reality of no future increase in global temperatures.
Well, so am I, but that doesn't change the history of "settled law" or the fact that you would never get an impeachment upon such grounds today. The entire Federal regulatory apparatus rests upon it and therefore the basis for favors and dispensations both the Congress and the President has to sell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.