[ColdOne]

This traitor Senate would approve it.

[Sybeck1]

Need two thirds?

[BenLurkin]

Just reject, revoke, and repudiate it. And move on.

[headstamp 2]

[As President Trump’s top advisers prepare to hash out a final policy on the Paris climate agreement dumped onto their laps by President Obama, another option has hit the table: Declare the deal a treaty and send it to the Senate to be killed. ]

That’s insane.

Is this like the SCOTUS was going to take care of ObamaCare and Campaign Finance Reform?

[LS]

Nope. Need 60 votes. Brilliant solution.

[stockpirate]

Trump just kill the damn thing, don’t pass the buck to the Senateb they just may pass it.

[Bob Celeste]

I love the way this President thinks.

[pgkdan]

The treaty option could emerge as the middle ground in the increasingly tense battle between “remainers” on the one hand, who say the president should abide by Mr. Obama’s global warming deal, and the Paris agreement’s detractors, who say Mr. Trump would be breaking a key campaign promise if he doesn’t withdraw from the pact.

I have a better idea Mr. President. Tear it up and call it for what it is...Anti-American bullsquat. Then let us know the names of any "Remainers" in the White House just before you fire their asses!

[C210N]

This is the Constitutional thing to do. It’s what should have been done in the first place, but its initiator was a muslim kenyan usurper who wanted to tear the Constitution up.

This thing is DOA upon arrival in the Senate.

[AlaskaErik]

Enough of the games. If we wanted useless worthless leadership we would have voted for Hillary.

[rigelkentaurus]

I’m good with calling it a treaty and let the Senate kill it. That is the constitutional process, it re-establishes the real process for international agreements = treaties.

The Iran deal was voted on by the Senate, but not as a treaty, only got 53 votes - never should have happened.

[LostPassword]

Other than requiring us to pay around $3 billion to developing nations like CHINA, Paris requires NOTHING.

I wish Trump would send it to the Senate and tweet how the only thing Paris does is makes us give money to China. And the money could be better spent on the wall. But emphasize that the Paris agreement requires NOTHING except require us to pay developing nations like China.

Fake news has fooled people about an accord that requires NOTHING except redistributing some money.

[socialism_stinX]

Great article here on the global warming issue with lots of good links:

http://humanevents.com/2013/05/14/global-warming/

[socialism_stinX]

This climate deal is a treaty, so the GOP should debate it and demolish it in the senate.

[DannyTN]

There is risk sending it to the senate.

Under what circumstances can the Executive enter an Executive agreement with other countries and it not be a treaty subject to Senate approval?

this from wikipedia...

"An executive agreement[1] is an agreement between the heads of government of two or more nations that has not been ratified by the legislature as treaties are ratified. Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding. An executive agreement is one of three mechanisms by which the United States enters into binding international agreements. They are considered treaties by some authors as the term is used under international law in that they bind both the United States and a foreign sovereign state. However, they are not considered treaties as the term is used under United States Constitutional law, because the United States Constitution's treaty procedure requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, and these agreements are made solely by the President of the United States. Some other nations have similar provisions with regard to the ratification of treaties.

In the United States[edit] An executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president's authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, or (3) from a prior act of Congress. For instance, it is as commander-in-chief that the President negotiates and enters into status of forces agreements (SOFAs), which govern the treatment and disposition of U.S. forces stationed in other nations. An executive agreement, however, cannot go beyond the President's constitutional powers. If an agreement was in the competence of the United States Congress, it would need to become a congressional-executive agreement or a treaty with Senate advice and consent. If an agreement was neither within the competence of Congress nor within the competence of the President (as for example an agreement which would affect powers reserved to the states), it could still be adopted by the President/Senate method but must not conflict with the United States Constitution.

The Case Act required the president to notify Congress within 60 days of any executive agreements that are formed; that figure has since been changed to 20 days.

[bert]

There is no Senate

The terminally constipated body is incapable of action

[discostu]

Needlessly complicated, as an unratified treaty they can just ignore it. America wrote the book on not ratifying treaties so you can ignore them when they get inconvenient.

[TalBlack]

What is stopping any judge that wants to from reinstating it?

[kabar]

Let them. This is a brilliant move. And it comports with the Constitution. Doubtful that two thirds of the Senate would support the “Treaty” as written. There are plenty of objectionable items that no Rep Senator would be able to defend to his/her constituency. It is an up or down vote since this is an international agreement. No amendments allowed or wanted.

[silverleaf]

I think Clintons senate rejected Kyoto 99 against and 1 no vote

[Steven Tyler]

Senate gets to approve Treaties

POTUS gets to kill or cancel Treaties.

See Trumps option to unilaterally cancel NAFTA, TPP etc