Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can Obama Sign A Climate Treaty Without Congress?
motherjones.com ^ | Fri Dec. 18, 2009 12:01 AM PST | By Kate Sheppard

Posted on 12/19/2009 12:07:21 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!

Why some environmentalists believe the president has the power to sidestep the Senate and commit the US to a global pact.

In 1997, in the Japanese city of Kyoto, the Clinton administration agreed to a groundbreaking treaty to combat global warming. And that's when the trouble started. The Senate had unanimously refused to approve the Kyoto Protocol, and in the end the Clinton administration didn't even submit it for a vote in the upper chamber. This made the US both the world's biggest polluter and, ultimately, the only industrialized nation to reject the accord. Now, as world leaders attempt to negotiate a new climate deal at Copenhagen, environmentalists want to avoid a repeat of the Kyoto debacle. That's why some green groups are urging Obama to do an end-run around the Senate and assert that his presidential powers empower him to commit the US to a climate treaty on his own.

Under Article II of the constitution, a president can sign an international treaty, but it must by ratified by two-thirds of the Senate before it becomes law. But there are also other types of international accords, like trade deals, that can be entered via a congressional-executive agreement, which requires only the approval of a simple majority in both houses of Congress. There’s no ironclad rule that determines which international pacts fall into which category. But neither route is easy. The last treaty to win ratification was the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2002, which reduced the nuclear arsenals of Russia and US. Trade agreements are no picnic, either—the most recent pact approved was with Peru in 2007, while Bush administration deals with Colombia, South Korea and Panama are still languishing on Capitol Hill.

(Excerpt) Read more at motherjones.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: 111th; agreement; bhofascism; bhotreason; bhotyrany; climategate; climatetreaty; copenhagen; democrats; envirofascism; enviromarxism; globalwarming; hoax; impeach; motherjones; nwo; obama; ogabe; rapeofliberty; sign; standdownobama; treason; treaties; treaty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last
Obama says 'unprecedented' deal reached on climate
1 posted on 12/19/2009 12:07:22 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

Sadly....


2 posted on 12/19/2009 12:12:25 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

Yes by ego but no by constitution.


3 posted on 12/19/2009 12:17:48 AM PST by fish hawk (It's sad that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. Isaac Asimov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

Can Obama sign the treaty .... yes. He can sign any document he wants to sign.

Does that then have the force of law an weight of a treaty by the mere act of his signing ... no. The Constitution and any act of Congress subject to the Constitution, still requires a 2/3rds majority to pass as a treaty.


4 posted on 12/19/2009 12:22:57 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT CONCUR...”

The consitution is NOT merely advisory - it is the LAW OF THE LAND. PERIOD.


5 posted on 12/19/2009 12:23:21 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

Gonna use the recent EPA ruling on CO2 to effect the change he wants, constitution be damned. Count on it.


6 posted on 12/19/2009 12:24:59 AM PST by Hexenhammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

According to the Constitution, no, but since Obama has pretty much trashed that document at this point, he intends to sign it by fiat.


7 posted on 12/19/2009 12:26:06 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper ("The Community Organizer better stop bitching that the community is organizing." - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol; NoObamaFightForConservatives; fish hawk

No, a binding climate treaty could be entered into by way of an “Executive Agreement”.

Executive Agreements

In addition to treaties, which may not enter into force and become binding on the United States without the advice and consent of the Senate, there are other types of international agreements concluded by the executive branch and not submitted to the Senate. These are classified in the United States as executive agreements, not as treaties, a distinction that has only domestic significance. International law regards each mode of international agreement as binding, whatever its designation under domestic law.

The difficulty in obtaining a two-thirds vote was one of the motivating forces behind the vast increase in executive agreements after World War II. In 1952, for instance, the United States signed 14 treaties and 291 executive agreements. This was a larger number of executive agreements than had been reached during the entire century of 1789 to 1889. Executive agreements continue to grow at a rapid rate. The United States is currently a party to nearly nine hundred treaties and more than five thousand executive agreements.

The growth in executive agreements is also attributable to the sheer volume of business and contacts between the United States and other countries, coupled with the already heavy workload of the Senate. Many international agreements are of relatively minor importance and would needlessly overburden the Senate if they were submitted to it as treaties for advice and consent. Another factor has been the passage of legislation authorizing the executive branch to conclude international agreements in certain fields, such as foreign aid, agriculture, and trade. Treaties have also been approved implicitly authorizing further agreements between the parties. According to a 1984 study by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, “88.3 percent of international agreements reached between 1946 and 1972 were based at least partly on statutory authority; 6.2 percent were treaties, and 5.5 percent were based solely on executive authority.”
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm


8 posted on 12/19/2009 12:34:18 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer; BigSkyFreeper

See post # 8.


9 posted on 12/19/2009 12:35:38 AM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

Yes they just call it an agreement or some other damn word.


10 posted on 12/19/2009 12:42:47 AM PST by TomasUSMC ( FIGHT LIKE WW2, FINISH LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

How would that “Executive Agreement” work when Ogabe wants to hand over 100 billion dollars per year of the taxpayer’s money?
Never mind, the Congress would never let that happen /sarc


11 posted on 12/19/2009 12:42:51 AM PST by Electric Graffiti (Well, we didn't get dressed up for nothin')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

You all assume Obama follows tradition and laws. He doesn’t. He’s already made that apparent.


12 posted on 12/19/2009 12:48:00 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper ("The Community Organizer better stop bitching that the community is organizing." - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
He can sign anything he wants to sign, but it is meaningless without a two thirds ratification by the senate.

The Senate can even ratify something and pretend it's binding, but ...

Any legislation or treaty that is repugnant to the US Constitution is null and void at its inception. However, bureaucrats will pretend otherwise, even enforcing such at gunpoint, until the people take back their government.

It's way past time.

13 posted on 12/19/2009 12:48:15 AM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

It too says he needs a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate, which is what everyone else is saying, myself included.


14 posted on 12/19/2009 12:49:15 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper ("The Community Organizer better stop bitching that the community is organizing." - Rush Limbaugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hexenhammer
"Gonna use the recent EPA ruling on CO2 to effect the change he wants, constitution be damned."

And who better to enforce this political agenda than Carol (former director of Socialists International) Browner, unconfirmed and unaccountable, Climate Change Commissar.

yitbos

15 posted on 12/19/2009 12:59:00 AM PST by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

All this climate foolishness just proves one thing... Trust placed in man and government is misplaced trust. Within the past month they have all proven themselves to be fools, and their leadership is a joke. (This includes all the world leaders across the board who bow at the altar of Climate Change to control people and make profit.)

There is only one place to place your Trust! And that is in God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit! Praise God!


16 posted on 12/19/2009 1:02:39 AM PST by PureSolace (Trust in God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

I bet he thinks so.


17 posted on 12/19/2009 1:04:18 AM PST by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I was very specific in my post and spoke of treaties not agreements. They are two separate things and agreements DO NOT become the “law of the land” as per stated in the Constitution.


18 posted on 12/19/2009 1:28:54 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
Its amusing to hear the Left urge the President resort to executive authority on climate change. This is just what they decried when Bush used it to prosecute wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They want an end run around the need to make a treaty because the American people will never support a reduction in their own standard of living. That incidentally, is why negotiations for a new climate change treaty have gone exactly nowhere.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

19 posted on 12/19/2009 1:46:50 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol
He can sign an “executive agreement” but then he can only order the executive branch to honor it. The rest of the country is free to ignore it. The military enters into “executive agreements” with foreign governments every week. But these agreements only require the military to be bound. In order to enforce some carbon tax scheme, he would have to go the treaty route. Congress would not enact implementing legislation for an executive agreement.
20 posted on 12/19/2009 1:57:16 AM PST by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: NavVet
Putting aside the technicalities, China will not go for this in any form. Particularly if ObaMao sighs this travesty, the Chicoms will stop backing our loans and I predict a large sell off of treasury securities will occur.

China may also demand they get paid immediately what they are owed, knowing the American economy and financial system will go under rapidly because of the effects that this will have on the entire American industrial sector.

China will then become the largest industrial power and the financial and stocks market will shift to Asia.

21 posted on 12/19/2009 2:13:17 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

Obama can sign my shiny white rear but it won’t mean anything.

He has no legal standing.


22 posted on 12/19/2009 2:20:22 AM PST by Eye of Unk (Phobos, kerdos, and doxa,” said the Time Traveler. “Fear, self-interest, and honor.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

It’s my understanding that a so-called “Executive Agreement” can - and often is - repudiated by a subsequent administration without either the approval of or permission from congress; i.e., it is legally meaningless.

The simple fact is that without a two-thirds vote of ratification, no treaty carries much weight, either legally or morally.


23 posted on 12/19/2009 2:38:37 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

It has to be ratified by congress but hey this f-ing marxist p.o.s. has failed to pay attention to the constitution up to now so why start?


24 posted on 12/19/2009 2:42:32 AM PST by Joe Boucher (This marxist punk has got to go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
The Constitution is NOT merely advisory - it is the LAW OF THE LAND. PERIOD.

The Constitution is one thing the Obama administration will not admit to inheriting.

25 posted on 12/19/2009 2:46:37 AM PST by Bernard (One if by Land, Two if by Sea, Three if by Government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives
The Dems have such a mess on their hands before the 2010 elections I doubt they will be able to do anything on this other than through the EPA, which could be overturned rather quickly after the elections.
26 posted on 12/19/2009 2:54:08 AM PST by 1776 Reborn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives; SteamShovel; SolitaryMan; grey_whiskers; IrishCatholic; Darnright; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

27 posted on 12/19/2009 3:04:10 AM PST by steelyourfaith (Time to prosecute Al Gore now that fellow scam artist Bernie Madoff is in stir.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard

Until such time as the United States has descended into complete anarchy and utter lawlessness, it matters not one iota what ANY politician - no matter WHO he may be - thinks of the constitution.

It is, as I mentioned above, quite simply the law of the land.

When it ceases to be binding upon rich and poor, powerless and powerful, highly placed or socially insignificant, you may - and should - write the obituary of the United States of America.


28 posted on 12/19/2009 3:07:57 AM PST by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

They are making excuses for the left to still support Obama’s Failure.

hehehheh


29 posted on 12/19/2009 3:31:39 AM PST by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bernard; Jack Hammer

While liberals have trumpeted that Obama was supposedly a “Con Law Professor” they somehow fail to mention that this use of the expression “Con Law” has nothing to do with the US Constitution and everything to do with the expression “Con Man”....


30 posted on 12/19/2009 3:52:42 AM PST by Enchante (Carter + Gore + Obama added together are not worth 1/1000th of a Nobel Prize ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives
Can Obama Sign A Climate Treaty Without Congress?

Sure.
Barry can sign any darn thing he wants to. Whether it's legal, binding, or Constitutional is another matter.

31 posted on 12/19/2009 4:31:26 AM PST by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

He can by calling it something other than a treaty. Bush sealed our commitment to defend Iraq by calling it a letter of agreement. The Democrats in Congress howled but there wasn’t much they could do about it.


32 posted on 12/19/2009 4:37:21 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

It’s obvious that in regards to Washington, the Constitution is only used when it suits them. But 90% of all laws made in the last several decades are in complete violation of the Constitution.

Today the Constitution only exists to serve the needs of criminals looking for an easy out of their guilt.


33 posted on 12/19/2009 4:39:08 AM PST by PSYCHO-FREEP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

34 posted on 12/19/2009 4:40:33 AM PST by Silly ("Okay, I'm getting just a little sick of this bereaved chicken-widow crap!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
I sense a potential problem here, given Pelosi's having locked Republicans out of certain things before. Note the use of the word 'present' here and think about it for a minute:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, PROVIDED TWO THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT CONCUR...

If only democrats are allowed in, and only they vote, then only they will be present. That worries me. I guess it all depends on what the meaning of the word 'present' is.
35 posted on 12/19/2009 4:42:38 AM PST by Marty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PSYCHO-FREEP
*** It’s obvious that in regards to Washington, the Constitution is only used when it suits them. But 90% of all laws made in the last several decades are in complete violation of the Constitution. ... Today the Constitution only exists to serve the needs of criminals looking for an easy out of their guilt. ***

Yeah. 'WE' FReepers know that, and I'd guess that 90% is being generous. 'Everything' is now somehow twisted to fit under the Commerce Clause.

SCOTUS needs to do some more smacking down of illegal laws like they did in the last years of the 'Rehnquist Court', where SCOTUS chastised Congress that 'The Commerce Clause DOESN'T pertain to everything'.

The problem there is first, getting 'standing', and then having the money to follow through to SCOTUS. Not to mention being 'found guilty' of a Fed crime - not exactly a pleasant experience.

36 posted on 12/19/2009 4:49:52 AM PST by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Obama said last night that he’s “not sure” he even has to sign this “agreement” they reached. This means that it will not be considered a treaty in any form and in fact will not even be considered a formal executive act; it will just go ahead bureaucratically, and he will enforce it through those means. That was probably the plan all along.


37 posted on 12/19/2009 5:22:16 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; ...
Under Article II of the constitution, a president can sign an international treaty, but it must by ratified by two-thirds of the Senate before it becomes law. But there are also other types of international accords, like trade deals, that can be entered via a congressional-executive agreement, which requires only the approval of a simple majority in both houses of Congress. There's no ironclad rule that determines which international pacts fall into which category. But neither route is easy. The last treaty to win ratification was the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2002, which reduced the nuclear arsenals of Russia and US.

38 posted on 12/19/2009 5:31:33 AM PST by SunkenCiv (My Sunday Feeling is that Nothing is easy. Goes for the rest of the week too.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Unreal that all day yesterday we hear how Copenhagen flops,
infighting blah blah blah and Obama is in meetings with China etc...

And in the middle of the night the long legged mack daddy signed (did) something?!


39 posted on 12/19/2009 7:20:58 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

They supposedly used the word “agreement’ and not treaty, to skirt chase this.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091218/D9CM0SUG0.html


40 posted on 12/19/2009 7:23:54 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: livius

I think you hit the nail on the head the whole disarray of this was for a reason.


41 posted on 12/19/2009 7:25:07 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: livius

Obama is a liar. He and his minions have a plan already set into motion to accomplish the end of the nation’s sovereignty, just as he and his party have accomplished the end of individual sovereignty in America. When a democrat states a doubt as to their success, you can bet they have already realized how to accomplish their illicit deed without we the people consent. Only lead can cure such a disease.


42 posted on 12/19/2009 7:30:29 AM PST by MHGinTN (Obots, believing they cannot be deceived, it is impossible to convince them when they are deceived.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

The executive branch has a lot of power to implement deals without having the thing even ratified. Besides its not even a treaty, its a non-binding agreement. lol.


43 posted on 12/19/2009 7:32:38 AM PST by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

If we eliminate the EPA from the budget, then that would also eliminate any suggestion that the EPA/President can sidestep the Congress (the body, not the house).


44 posted on 12/19/2009 7:44:57 AM PST by vg0va3 (I don't plan to quit the fight until it is finally over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vg0va3

“Senate Republicans have already tried once this year to cut off funding to the EPA to prevent it from regulating carbon, and could easily do so again.”


45 posted on 12/19/2009 7:46:58 AM PST by vg0va3 (I don't plan to quit the fight until it is finally over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allerious; ...
NO!



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
46 posted on 12/19/2009 7:48:37 AM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives
Can Obama Sign A Climate Treaty Without Congress?

Of course he can. This TREASONOUS man-child has not let a little thing like the Constitution get in his way of installing MARXISM so far - I expect this to continue for another three years UNLESS the GOP can take back CONGRESS and put the brakes on this runaway train.

How's that HOPE and CHANGE working out?
47 posted on 12/19/2009 7:50:46 AM PST by Cheerio (Barack Hussein 0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NoObamaFightForConservatives

I don’t know, what did the teleprompter tell him?


48 posted on 12/19/2009 7:51:14 AM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Liberalism is a social disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio; All
CHINA: 'The world does not have Money to buy more US Treasuries'
49 posted on 12/19/2009 7:54:20 AM PST by Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: bamahead

B U M P


50 posted on 12/19/2009 7:56:21 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker (Support our troops, and vote out the RINO's!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson