No man’s liberty or property is safe while the President is in Denmark.
The question is: if the President signs a climate control treaty in Copenhagen, will he submit it to the Senate for ratification?
Common Sense Political Thought
President Bush and the Republicans spent way, way, way too much money, but when it comes to spending, they were bush leaguers — pun intended — compared to President Obama and the Democrats.
Donate for Haitian Earthquake Relief
If you do not wish to donate directly to Catholic Relief Services, to avoid getting on a mailing list, you may use the Network for Good site, through the button below, and your donation will be made anonymously to CRS, and you can get a year-end receipt for charitable donations from the Network for Good.
Ken Vermillion’s Journal
Buy from Amazon.com
Donate to Angel34.org
-
Flag Counter (Since 10 October 2009)
Stock Quotes
DJIA 10287.11 +17.64
NASDAQ 2191.99 +15.15
S&P 500 1086.36 +6.07
2010-09-02 14:35
He don’t need no steeekin senate to ratify the Actions of “THE ANOINTED ONE”
BTW, we’re expecting a possibility of up to 24 inch of global warming over the weekend
Wouldn’t it be considered unconstitutional if he does not?
h: Yes it would.
h.:
Wouldn’t it be considered unconstitutional if he does not?
But “THE ANOINTED ONE” doesn’t like the Constitution bacause the rules are so restrictive.
Constitution? We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution!
h asked:
No. It wouldn’t be ratified if he never submits it, and international law requires that a signatory nation do nothing to undermine a signed but as yet unratified treaty.
Why should Obama submit to the Senate’s authority? They might refuse to ratify his decision and that would lead directly to a Constitutional crisis. The President, not Congress, has designated responsibility for foreign policy.
In his oath of office, Obama pledged to protect and defend the US Constitution, clearly that’s his first responsibility. Senate rejection of a treaty, signed by the President outside the US, would set a precedent for Congressional supremacy over the Executive Branch in the area of foreign affairs.
Obama must not allow the Senate to usurp his Constitutional authority.
Hopefully, ropelight is not serious.
No, he’s not, but there are probably more than a few who would agree with what he wrote.
However, our liberty and property might be safe, after all: it seems that there’s a good chance that nothing will get done.
I never thought I’d find myself saying this, but three cheers for the Red Chinese gov’t! They’re extending the middle finger to the whole Global Warming establishment, saying, in effect, if we have to choose between expanding our prosperity and kissing your asses, we’re going with the former. I hope they continue to be stubborn, since without their cooperation, there’s no way you can get a comprehensive Global warming treaty that will amount to anything real.
Eric said, “…without their (ChiCom) cooperation, there’s no way you can get a comprehensive Global warming treaty that will amount to anything real.”
I agree, but for the right price they might be persuaded to enter into an agreement to trade the appearance of a commitment to an AGW treaty in exchange for exclusion from both it’s provisions and any actual verification measures. All included in a binding secret codicil which requires all parties to deny it exists.
Obama could then come home waving a signed agreement and claiming credit for putting an end to AWG. O happy day.
PS: Dana is correct, my comment above is as phony as Obama’s pledge to protect and defend the US Constitution.
The IRONY of it all, BO left Kobenhavyn early because of a snow storm coming to Washington.
The latest:
More at the link. But it looks like they settled for words rather than deeds; that’s a good thing.
My apologies to all here. My first comment above was sarcasm pure and simple. I was making fun of the notion Obama could inflict an AGW treaty on us without Senate approval.
While the US Constitution, Article II, does allow the President to sign a treaty, it also requires a 2/3rds vote in the Senate before the treaty can become law. The question could not be any more clearly and definitively addressed in the most authoritative document we possess.
However, to my shock and dismay, I now find some rather significant others don’t happen see it the same way. For them, the Constitutional provision isn’t so much a barrier as an obstacle to be overcome or sidetracked.
The issue is discussed in a “Mother Jones” article, “Can Obama sign a Climate Treaty Without Congress” by Kate Sheppard, dated 12/18/09.
“…some environmental groups and legal experts are calling on Obama to take unilateral action. At a briefing in Copenhagen last week, Greenpeace and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), an Arizona-based conservation group, argued that the president could become a party to a binding climate agreement simply by signing an executive agreement, bypassing Congress altogether. There is “very solid legal footing for negotiating an executive agreement here in Copenhagen,” argued Kassie Siegel, senior counsel of CBD, which has issued a new report outlining what it sees as Obama’s legal options for entering a climate accord. Friends of the Earth has also endorsed this concept. “If he wants to lead the world on climate change, he has to step up to the plate and commit the US to the treaty process,” said FOE president Erich Pica.”
This is nothing less than a direct assault on the US Constitution. The Global Warming hoaxers are so sure their ends are justified that they’re willing to undermine the very foundations of American freedom and liberty. They could not be more wrong, or more dangerous to the nation.