Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
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 ...
I think you hit the nail on the head the whole disarray of this was for a reason.
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.
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.
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).
“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.”
I don’t know, what did the teleprompter tell him?
B U M P
Excellent idea. Would it ever happen? While we are at it we need the dept of education (gov run schools) to close shop as well.
Short answer: No.
Long anser: If he tries it, it may be the one thing that could get him impeached. Senators have huge egos, and the voters would likely vote in enough REpublicans to take the House back.
It depends on what Obama’s definition of what agreement, is.
He can sign anything he wants but it takes the congress to make it mean anything.
How dare you look into secord-order (and beyond) effects? Why, you must be one of those...those...those...conservatives!
:-)
We will just have to make these people listen to us...
As long as the people fear the government there will be tyranny...as long as the government fears the people there will be freedom.
Right now the government doesn’t fear the people, they just stomp on them.
I was having similar thoughts, and can only hope that enough senators will realize how bad such a power play can look when it’s an issue this big. I hope that the corporate outcry would make it untenable.
Technically he must sign it before it is submitted to the Senate for ratification. The Constitution requires that 2/3 of the members of the Senate must ratify it before it becomes law.
Well, he signed an EO allowing human fetal stem cell research, then three days later signed a bill that had a “no human cell experimentation” clause, and everyone is ignoring that little fact and are going ahead.
I think he may sign it, declare victory, and his minions in the regulatory agencies will act like it’s legitamate.
It will naturally be part of the Articles against him, should things get that far.
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.