Beam me to Planet Gore !
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 ...
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.
Obama can sign my shiny white rear but it won’t mean anything.
He has no legal standing.
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.
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?
The Constitution is one thing the Obama administration will not admit to inheriting.
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.
They are making excuses for the left to still support Obama’s Failure.
hehehheh
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”....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?!
They supposedly used the word “agreement’ and not treaty, to skirt chase this.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091218/D9CM0SUG0.html
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.