Send the Paris Climate Treaty to the Senate

American capital building in Washington DC .

The most far-reaching international agreement ever must get Senate advice, consent and vote

Paul Driessen

Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution is simple and direct: “The President … shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.” It served America well for 225 years.

Then, in 2015, the UN’s “international community” of climate activists gathered in Paris to hammer out language requiring that developed nations slash their fossil fuel use, tighten greenhouse gas emission targets every five years, and become “carbon neutral” within a few decades – to prevent a manmade climate chaos forecast by computer models but not supported by Earth history or real-world evidence.

Developing countries would be under no such obligations. Most incredibly, economic, military and tech powerhouse China was included among the developing countries, and thus is under no such obligations.

In short, the Paris accords would force the United States to engage in a massive, painful transformation of its entire economy – electricity generation, transportation, manufacturing, agriculture and much more – under the aegis of the United Nations and UN and foreign country activists, politicians and bureaucrats.

Aside from ending major wars, what was concocted in Paris is probably the most far-reaching, impactful agreement this country was ever asked to sign. It is the very embodiment of what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the language requiring Senate debate, advice and consent for all treaties.

However, President Obama unilaterally decreed that Paris was not a “treaty,” but merely an agreement, an accord – some lesser document that he could personally sign, committing the US to it, making an end-run around our constitutional and democratic process, and giving Congress and America no opportunity to examine, discuss and agree to or reject this intrusive, destructive treaty. In so doing, Mr. Obama set the stage for coordinated efforts by liberal politicians, activists, bureaucrats, state attorneys general, forum-shopped judges and corporate CEOs to make the Paris language binding on every American.

President Trump recognized how unfair and disastrous the Paris Climate Treaty would be. In 2017, he announced that the United States was withdrawing; the withdrawal became effective November 4, 2020.

Joe Biden has made it clear that he will recommit our nation to the Paris not-a-treaty, possibly within hours of being sworn in as president, if lingering vote issues are resolved in his favor. Fortunately, President Trump can easily prevent this disaster. As Paris Treaty experts have suggested,  

Mr. Trump could and should submit the treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent – and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should quickly schedule a debate and vote. Every Senator will have an opportunity to go on record: for or against a treaty that would make the United States, and every individual state and family, subjects of unelected, unaccountable UN and foreign powers.

President Trump should do this posthaste – thereby preventing another unilateral executive action and what Government Accountability & Oversight lawyer Chris Horner has described as a well-coordinated “climate litigation industry” plan to commandeer our courts in an endless series of lawsuits to make every Paris Climate Treaty provision legally binding on every US state, industry, business and family.

For example, Massachusetts AG Maura Healey promised Michael Bloomberg’s State Energy & Environmental Impact Center that, if its deep coffers provided her office with privately hired lawyers whom she could utilize as “Special Assistant Attorneys General,” she would put them to work “ensuring that Massachusetts and neighboring states meet the long-term commitments set forth … in the Paris Agreement” – whatever those might be or could be creatively interpreted to be. She’s already doing it.

Another scheme involves reviving the reviled Obama era practice of sue-and-settle lawsuits, under which environmentalist groups sue government agencies to implement and impose rules that the litigators and regulators both want but aren’t clearly supported by law or would face strong public opposition if they went through a normal rulemaking process. The parties select a usually cooperative court and, instead of fighting the lawsuit, the government agency caves in, agrees to settle the case, and consents to whatever demands were made by the agency’s handpicked pseudo-adversary. The citizenry and parties impacted by the new rules never get their day in court, and rarely find out about the rule until it is imposed on them. 

The schemes are audacious, outrageous, an abuse of law and authority, and in many minds treasonous. Activists will employ them and the Paris Climate Treaty as weapons of mass destruction against America’s energy, economy, living standards and freedoms.

Horner also notes that rejoining the Paris Treaty would subject America’s energy and economic policy to a UN climate “conciliation commission” that could allow “antagonistic” nations and parties to file complaints about alleged US non-compliance with Paris, block infrastructure development, and impose carbon taxes. He and Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Marlo Lewis also point out that:

* allowing the Obama “climate coup” to stand would allow future presidents to adopt any treaties they and foreign elites want, without Senate review and ratification, simply by deeming them “not a treaty.”

* the Paris Treaty would imperil American self-government – by empowering administrations to make long-term commitments without congressional authorization, and by making US energy and economic policies beholden to the demands of foreign leaders, UN bureaucrats and international pressure groups.

If We the People ultimately decide we do want to transform our energy and economic system, reduce our living standard, curtail our liberties, and subject ourselves to international governance, we can do so through proper nationwide debates and legislative processes. We should not have these decisions imposed on us via collusion, corruption, chicanery and unconstitutional power grabs.

Too many of our ruling elites disdain business, industry and working classes; rarely if ever did serious manual work; and most often belong to a Democrat Party that once stood up for workers, but now has turned its back on working men and women. These elites would help ensure that same families pummeled hardest and longest by Covid lockdowns will be punished in perpetuity by Paris Climate Treaty edicts.

All that red on county-by-county 2020 voting maps is where jobs, economies and living standards will hammered hardest. Many of these counties have manufacturing jobs … farmlands, forests, scenic and open spaces, habitats where birds, bats and wildlife flourish … and the best wind and solar sites.

This is where land will be blanketed with millions of wind turbines, solar panels, battery complexes and transmission lines, to “replace” billions of megawatt-hours of reliable electricity with intermittent power – decimating many rare, threatened, endangered and just plain magnificent species.

It’s where new dust bowls will arise, as biofuel crops replace today’s grasslands. It’s where factories will close, because the Paris Treaty will make electricity intermittent and expensive, and petrochemical raw materials too costly or simply unavailable.

Will President Trump and Senator McConnell let a Biden-Harris Administration – in league with squads of America-denigrating politicians and Deep State activists – do this to our country?

Or will they preserve the Constitution, the Trump energy, economic, employment and military legacy – the livelihoods, living standards and liberties, not only of MAGA Trump voters, but of all Americans?

This may be their last opportunity to do so. I therefore urge them – and I’m certain I’m joined by tens of millions of my fellow Americans in urging the President and Senate Majority Leader:

Present this defective, destructive Paris Climate Treaty to the Senate. Let the assembled Senators debate it, vote on it – and send it to history’s dustbin, where it belongs.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, environment, climate and human rights issues.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
118 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 7, 2020 6:45 pm

“shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties”
So did Pres Trump make this treaty? In what capacity does he send it to the Senate? Recommending it? How can he ask the Senate to ratify an agreement from which he has withdrawn?

TonyL
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 7:16 pm

In the United States, a binding agreement with with a foreign power or multiple foreign powers is defined as a “Treaty”. Unless, of course, you are Barack Obama and you have a pen and a phone so you declare it a “Not A Treaty”.

In what capacity does he send it to the Senate?
He is the president of the US. The Constitution requires an international agreement (a “Treaty”, see above) to be sent to the Senate for approval if it is to be binding.

Glad I could help.

Reply to  TonyL
December 7, 2020 7:22 pm

So is he seeking approval? Of an agreement of which he has withdrawn the US participation?

And of course, since the US has withdrawn, how is it “binding”?

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 8:01 pm

Nick, has your ability to read been that degraded over time, or are you out of practice at thinking clearly.
It’s not binding until after the Senate ratifies it. Even you should be able to figure that out.

Reply to  MarkW
December 7, 2020 8:22 pm

But if the US president can withdraw with the stroke of a pen, it isn’t binding anyway. The Senate needs to ratify binding treaties.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
December 8, 2020 5:15 am

It isn’t binding BECAUSE Obama didn’t seek congressional approval.
If Trump receives Congressional REFUSAL it can be permanently put to rest

Editor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 8:21 pm

It’s pretty simple, Nick. Donald Trump can tear up a non-treaty any time he likes. As he just did. Joe Biden says he will bind the USA to a treaty by pushing it through as a non-treaty but then treating it as a treaty. Donald Trump can show Joe Biden what the Senate thinks of it, by presenting Joe Biden’s treaty in its correct form as a treaty to the Senate and getting them to vote on it. If the Senate approves, Joe Biden gets his treaty, and he gets it by a proper democratic process, and it would be extremely difficult (to say the least) for Donald Trump to then oppose it. If the Senate disapproves, then Joe Biden and the American people would get a clear message that the treaty is not acceptable, and it would be extremely reasonable if any subsequent attempt by Joe Biden to get the treaty through as a non-treaty ran into a barrage of opposition.

Ironically, it’s high-risk for Donald Trump and de-risking for Joe Biden, yet Donald Trump supporters support it.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 7, 2020 8:33 pm

Mike,
Yes, it’s pretty simple. The Article quoted says that “The President … shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”. It doesn’t say that the President shall have the Power to bind a future President to not make some agreement. It describes a process to seek ratification of something the President has agreed to.

What “agreement” would he submit for “non-ratification”, when Biden hasn’t had a chance to even commence negotiation?

LdB
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 7, 2020 10:19 pm

You are playing geriatric stupid .. if the senate votes it takes any sort of mandate for Sleepy Joe away and it will have implications as such in future litigation. Even sleepy Joe isn’t stupid enough to send it himself. It’s called politics and legal shenanigans 101.

Editor
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 8, 2020 12:08 am

Nick – I’m not suggesting that “the President shall have the Power to bind a future President to not make some agreement”. Clearly not having the Senate agree to something doesn’t bind anyone to anything. What I said was “If the Senate disapproves, then Joe Biden and the American people would get a clear message that the treaty is not acceptable”. A clear message is not binding, but it would help Joe Biden by giving him an inkling of how any effort of his to get a treaty in by the back door would be received. But it’s still Donald Trump who would be taking all the risk while Jie Biden could safely sleep through it.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 8, 2020 12:57 am

Mike,
The Senate can make its view known, and no referral from the President is needed. This is separate from the treaty ratification process inappropriately invoked here. The Senate in fact did that in 1997 with the Byrd-Hagel resolution, intended to signify displeasure with the Kyoto negotiations.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mike Jonas
December 8, 2020 2:15 am

What “agreement” would he submit for “non-ratification”, when Biden hasn’t had a chance to even commence negotiation?

The treaty known as the Paris accord, the very thing Joe Biden has promised to sign the US up to. Are you really this dumb or are you being paid to be this dumb? I find it hard to imaging anyone is the former, so it must be the later. Your paymasters are not getting their money’s worth.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 8, 2020 2:12 am

Biden has already said he’ll sign back on to it, so all Trump would be doing is expediting the new presidents plans by submitting the Paris treaty to congress for it’s advice and consent. It would be helping sleepy joe out. surely you can’t object to that?

Timothy R Robinson
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 9, 2020 3:15 am

The idea behind sending it to the senate is that it will fail as a treaty.
As Obama called it a agreement, he by-passed Congress.
But if Congress treats it as a treaty, they can close the agreement, (trea·ty-
a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.),
for good.

MarkW
Reply to  TonyL
December 7, 2020 7:59 pm

Nick’s re-entered his thread hijacking mode. He’s desperately throwing out utter inanities that I doubt even he’s dumb enough to take seriously in an effort to so swamp the thread that no rational discussion remains possible.

Duker
Reply to  TonyL
December 7, 2020 10:42 pm

Not so . Plenty of binding agreements are “treatys’, mostly trade agreements.

“The capacity of the United States to enter into agreements with other nations is not exhausted in the treaty-making power. The Constitution recognizes a distinction between “treaties” and “agreements” or “compacts” but does not indicate what the difference is.438 The differences, which once may have been clearer, have been seriously blurred in practice within recent decades. Once a stepchild in the family in which treaties were the preferred offspring, the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification.”

“During the first half-century of its independence, the United States was party to sixty treaties but to only twenty-seven published executive agreements.
Between 1939 and 1993, executive agreements comprised more than 90% of the international agreements concluded.

a range of agreements of various kinds are ….
Agreements Under the United Nations Charter.
Status of Forces Agreements.
Executive Agreements on the Sole Constitutional Authority of the President
…etc etc

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-2/international-agreements-without-senate-approval

Alba
Reply to  TonyL
December 8, 2020 3:33 pm

As a non-American I don’t claim to have a deep knowledge of the US Constitution so this really is a question: Can the Supreme Court be asked to rule whether the Paris thingey (whatever you want to call it) is or is not a treaty and can only have any application in the USA if it is approved by the Senate?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 7:30 pm

It’s still on the table. He just chose not to follow it. He can change his mind.

Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
December 7, 2020 7:39 pm

No, he has formally withdrawn final 4 November 2020.

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 8:17 pm

He has withdrawn but he can still get advice, as per your quote.

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 8, 2020 2:17 am

Indeed he has, and Joe has promised to reenter and that’s all the reason Trump needs to send it to congress to help old sleepy joe out with the process, seeing as BO and Joe didn’t seem to understand the process the first time around, he clearly needs all the help Trump can give him.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 7:49 pm

The Executive Branch is one continuum, from 1789 George Washington to 2020 Trump today.

The Executive Branch has withdrawn from Obama Administrative signature on the Pact. Dementia Joe wants to re sign onto the Paris deal on January 20th at 12:01 PM noontime.
If the current executve submits it to the Senate and the Senate rejects it (less than 2/3), the Joe Biden is CONSTITUTIONALLY FORBIDDEN from re signing (rejoining the deal). If Dementia Joe tries to re-join after Senate rejection, the judiciary branch could not find in his favor such a turn of events on a Foreign deal that requires the US Treasury fork over billions of US government dollars to the UN every year.

It really is that simple Nick.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 7, 2020 7:55 pm

If President Biden wants to rejoin, and if the agreement is determined to be a binding treaty, then it would be up to him to seek ratification of whatever agreement that he has reached. That is when the 2/3 majority would apply.

But it’s hard to see it as binding if Pres Trump could simply withdraw by executive fiat.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 9:24 pm

You don’t seem to understand that the US Senate will be Republican led until at least January 20th. In the next 6 weeks, Trump could submit it, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell could call a vote on it and send it down the drain. So when Dementia Joe’s inauguration comes he is unable to re join it.
If he tries anyway, the US Federal Courts would bitch slap him.

Duker
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 7, 2020 10:36 pm

New senators are sworn in before Jan 20 , the new session of 117th Congress begins Jan 3 .
As the two Georgia senate seats would be vacant on that day – maybe a week or more to certify the results, it will be 48-50 at that time

Steve
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
December 8, 2020 3:47 am

50 votes would be 17 short of ratification.

Plus, not ALL Dems would vote for it. Dems from fossil fuel states would be committing career suicide if they voted for it. Joe Manchin (West Virginia) supported Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement outright, and even nominal Paris agreement supporters like Bob Casey (Pennsylvania) might balk if asked to put their support for the agreement on their voting record, which would surely be used against them in future elections in their home state.

LdB
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 10:32 pm

Nick read what Joel has written … if it helps you here are the steps.

What it sets up is if the Paris Agreement looks and quacks like a treaty then its a treaty. So, let the Senate take it up, and it will fail ratification. Then, on Jan. 20, a Biden administration will issue an executive order rejoining it.

Inevitably, someone who is harmed by Paris is going to be in court pointing out that the president is enforcing something that the Senate said explicitly he could not … aka it’s a quaking duck.

So what it allows is fossil fuel companies to take on Joe’s order in a court

Reply to  LdB
December 7, 2020 11:07 pm

“So, let the Senate take it up, and it will fail ratification”
Under the Article quoted, the Senate can vote on whether to ratify a Treaty that the President has made (agreed to). It can’t ratify a Treaty he hasn’t made, which is the situation here.

John Endicott
Reply to  LdB
December 8, 2020 2:21 am

Nick you are wrong, this has been pointed out to you the last time with two examples of presidents starting the process *BEFORE* any treaty has been signed. Your continuing to repeat your debunked falsehoods shows that you are a bad faith and disingenuous poster – IE a troll. Go crawl back under your bridge.

tsk tsk
Reply to  LdB
December 8, 2020 12:43 pm

It can’t ratify a Treaty he hasn’t made, which is the situation here.

The Senate approves or disapproves of any treaty submitted to it regardless of whether the current president “negotiated” it or not.

Bryan A
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 7:51 pm

For that same argument…
President Biden also did not enter into the agreement either and thereby has no authority to submit the U.S. to its precepts.
Creating a U.S. subservience to a foreign entity, AKA the UN, is akin to a treaty. For the U.S. to become party to the Paris Accord to and to be bound by its requirements and Foreign Oversight RRQUIRES it be rectified by Congress.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 7:58 pm

Obviously he sends it under his power as President.

As to having withdrawn from the treaty, you are wrong on many levels.
First off, according to Obama it isn’t a treaty.
Secondly the US was never a part of the treaty since the Senate hasn’t ratified it.
Thirdly, so what?

Do you frequently work so hard to find utter irrelevancies?

BobM
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 8:01 pm

Simple. Obama knew when he signed the “agreement” he could not get it ratified by the Senate, so he joined it as an “agreement” in September of 2016. Had Hillary Clinton won the election, and somehow got enough Senate seats to ratify it as a treaty, she could have tried that, no? In the same vein as your argument, she didn’t “make” the treaty, but would she have been prevented from trying to get it ratified? Not at all. In what capacity would she have sent it to the Senate? As President of the United States recommending a Treaty negotiated by a recently retired President.

Trump is no different, except that he would send it to the Senate WITHOUT a recommendation. The fact that he has withdrawn from the AGREEMENT made by the dearly departed Obama doesn’t mean he shouldn’t also ask the Senate to weigh in on its merits as a Treaty.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 7, 2020 9:47 pm

Nick,
He can send it to the Senate, as a “new” treaty that has not been sent to the Senate before now. What he rejected before was an agreement, not a treaty and he chose for clarity and less complication to withdraw as procedures for a treaty required. This might have been to erase doubt among those who thought it was a legitimate treaty.
Nick, as an Australian, I am concerned for my country which faces the same erosion of Sovereignty that Chris Horner described for the USA. I wonder why a thinking person like you does not share and write about your own concern for such a future. Maybe, like many of my friends, you might regard the Astralians who unilaterally signed this treaty as treasonous.
I spent a lot of my career time objecting privately and corporately to the bureaucratic efforts of United Nations people, to the extent of taking a past Federal Environment Minister through the courts to the High Court to prevent World Heritage takeover of a large piece of land in the NT. The Swamp in its early form prevailed and we lost, as can happen when a Judge had until not long before been president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, but was too impolite to declare conflict of interest.
I do not want to see my Australia ripped apart any more by these communist-leaning internationalists.
Do you? Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
December 7, 2020 10:34 pm

Geoff,
“He can send it to the Senate, as a “new” treaty that has not been sent to the Senate before now. “

In terms of the Article quoted, the President can send a treaty that he has made (ie agreed) for ratification. He can’t, under that provision, send any old treaty that he found on the internet. Or agreements that he has rejected. The Article describes a situation where a President makes a Treaty, and the Senate decides whether to concur. Clearly this is not such a situation.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 8, 2020 1:59 am

Nick,
Have a think about what “make” means as in “make a treaty”.
It does not mean that Pres has to write down words in the form of a treaty, “make” as in “manufacture”.
It can mean that he accepts and brings into force, a set of words prepared by others. “make” as in “make it happen”.
Shall you outline your stance on the Paris agreement and Australian Sovereignty? Geoff S

John Endicott
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 8, 2020 2:29 am

rewriting the constitution now? is there no low you won’t go you silly troll. the constitution does not say “made” (past tense). it says “make” (which is a process). Joe has promised he will sign on to the treaty – it’s being “made” starting with that promise, the current president (Trump) would simply be passing it on to the Senate as part of the process, helping the new guy get started. Isn’t that nice of Trump.

Reply to  John Endicott
December 8, 2020 9:39 am

“rewriting the constitution now?”
No. The plain words of the constitution are that the President may make treaties (ie sign agreements), and may submit those treaties to the Senate for ratification. And that has been the practice throughout the republic. There is no precedent for a president under this provision to submit an agreement other than one that he has negotiated (especially one he has rejected) for ratification. It makes a mockery of the provision.

tsk tsk
Reply to  John Endicott
December 8, 2020 12:40 pm

There is no precedent for a president under this provision to submit an agreement other than one that he has negotiated (especially one he has rejected) for ratification. It makes a mockery of the provision.

This is spectacularly stupid. The Paris Agreement was already “negotiated.” It can be submitted to the Senate at any time by any president. There is no requirement that it has to be an agreement negotiated under the current administration (see NAFTA). What makes a mockery of the provision is when the president does NOT submit a treaty to the Senate as is his Constitutional duty. No amount of gaslighting changes that fact.

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;

That’s what it says. There’s no nonsense about “binding” or “may submit” and certainly no exceptions for treaties that have been “rejected.”

Reply to  John Endicott
December 8, 2020 1:49 pm

“It can be submitted to the Senate at any time by any president.”
This is a ratification procedure. You can see the nonsense if you considered what would result if it passed the Senate. They would have ratified an “agreement” which neither the President nor the Paris group have agreed to. What then?

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
December 9, 2020 2:10 am

No. The plain words of the constitution are that the President may make treaties

yes “make” not “made” as you previously tried to rewrite it. make is a process, made (past tense) is a process that has already completed.

There is no precedent for a president under this provision to submit an agreement other than one that he has negotiated

Nonsense. The constitution says nothing about the current president having to be the one to have negotiated the agreement. G HW Bush negotiated NAFTA and signed shortly before he left office (Dec 1992, much like Obama signed Paris), and wasn’t submitted to congress until Clinton was President (1993). According to you since Clinton didn’t negotiate it, he couldn’t have submitted it to congress. D’oh!

The only mockery here, is you Nick! Just know we aren’t laughing with you, we’re laughing at you.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
December 9, 2020 2:16 am

They would have ratified an “agreement” which neither the President nor the Paris group have agreed to. What then?

The Paris group already agreed to the Paris accord under Obama’s presidency, there’s nothing further for them to agree to. Biden has already agreed to sign back onto that agreement. So if the Senate were to ratify it everything is hunky dory. (but Obama knew what you and I know and what you are really afraid of: that you aren’t going to get 2/3rds of the senate to sign on to that monstrosity, even with any RINOs that might be willing to climb aboard)

paul courtney
Reply to  Nick Stokes
December 8, 2020 10:09 am

Mr. Stokes: Rarely see you get this obtuse, but if it’s sauce for the goose…. Where does it say he “can’t”? In that provision?
Your position is that he can’t. Article II does not use that word, so where do you get it? Is there some precedent for your novel interpretation of the quoted language? Or are you just reading “can’t” into it?
You wanna play lawyer, let’s play.

Reply to  paul courtney
December 8, 2020 10:27 am

“Your position is that he can’t.”
Quote it properly I said
“He can’t, under that provision, send any old treaty…”
The provision does not provide for it. He can of course ask the Senate to comment on anything he chooses; the Senate could do that without him asking. But that isn’t done subject to the Article II provision (or a 2/3 majority).

tsk tsk
Reply to  paul courtney
December 8, 2020 12:45 pm

Completely incorrect. He can submit *any* treaty to the Senate. You fail high school civics. The puts you inline with the majority of Americans these days, sadly.

Reply to  paul courtney
December 8, 2020 1:51 pm

So when has a president ever submitted a treaty for ratification under Article II 2 to which he has not agreed with the participants?

paul courtney
Reply to  paul courtney
December 8, 2020 4:20 pm

And you race ahead with “when has a president ever submitted…” yadayada. “President” is an office, occupied by a person.
But I’d rather not race ahead just yet, let’s stay with the language in Article II. It says the President has the power to make treaties, we agree. With Senate 2/3 vote, we agree. Thus, he has the power to submit a ham sandwich to the Senate, but the power to submit is clear, can we agree? You start adding things not there, like which person signed it, but there is no language in Art. II that limits his power to submit or prohibits submissions.
There could be precedent, maybe even supports my position. Dunno. You have stated a proposition, if you want precedent, do your own homework. Show us when a President was stopped from submitting something to the Senate. Who stopped him?

BobM
December 7, 2020 6:46 pm

+100

Kevin A
December 7, 2020 6:56 pm

The problem is the RINO, Marxist, #NeverTrump GOP would joint the Democrats and pass it! You think the Social giants are throwing money at the politicians to keep section 230 unmolested, wait until the Global Warming propaganda, rent seeking crowd gets through, you’ll see >30 or so GOP congress critters retire.

John Endicott
Reply to  Kevin A
December 8, 2020 2:35 am

Kevin A, it takes two thirds of the Senate to pass it. meaning you’d needs nearly 20 RINOs. You are not going to get nearly 20 Senate Republicans signing on to the Paris nonsense. And that’s assuming no Democrats object to it, There are a few Senate Dems “moderates” from states that are not friendly to the Paris nonsense, it’s possible a few Dems would not sign on to it either .

Warren
December 7, 2020 6:59 pm

“Will President Trump and Senator McConnell let . . .”
Yes indeed Jared K is running the country and that’s why Trump isn’t.
The US was always going to do the heavy lifting for the UN and anyone that thought otherwise was deluded.
Trump ‘withdrawing’ from Paris was momentary smoke-n-mirrors.
Jared now back in the black after successfully doing his benefactors’ bidding.

ScarletMacaw
December 7, 2020 7:00 pm

This recommendation in (IIRC) The Wall Street Journal was posted here Nov. 30th. I commented with such a recommendation here on November 10th.

But don’t stop. This needs to be stated over and over. The Paris agreement is a Treaty, and not in effect until ratified by a 23 majority in the Senate. By submitting it that puts the nail in it.

Drake
Reply to  ScarletMacaw
December 9, 2020 8:10 am

You are, of course, correct that the Paris “accord” was always a treaty. It was never properly challenged through the courts to the SCOTUS, IMHO, because the court makeup, including Roberts as the deciding vote, would not declare Obama’s actions unconstitutional. Now, with Roberts one of the only 4 liberal justices, if resigned by Joe and not submitted to the Senate for ratification, any enforcement of its provisions WILL be challenged and will eventually get to the SCOTUS and be ruled invalid due to no Senate ratification.

As a side note: Nick’s obtuse comments indicating first no knowledge of the US constitution, then implying what can and can’t be done when submitting a treaty for ratification as if a US constitutional scholar is, in a NUT shell, the global warming narrative. We don’t really know any real science but we are now experts in “Climate Science” because we say so!!!

I must say I have gotten good info from Nick at times but it is the nature of his and other climate fanatics mental processes revealed in the string of comments above that show it is not about science, it is about emotion. Why is he so worked up about this process of treaty submission to the US Senate? It has nothing to do with the process, but with the possibility that the holy grail of locking the US into the massive climate fraud and forcing the US to subsidize the world in the GREEN scam may be permanently blocked.

Tom Abbott
December 7, 2020 7:11 pm

I think this is a waste of time to submit the Paris Climate treaty to the U.S. Senate.

If the Senate rejects the treaty, there is nothing to stop Democrats from introducing a similar treaty sometime later, probably after they have stolen three-fourths of the Senate seats.

If the Democrats control the House and the Senate, then they don’t need a treaty, they can implement the provisions of the Paris Accord through other laws.

I imagine there will be a lot of Republican Senators that would not want to be put on the spot over Human-caused Climate Change.

My home-state U.S. Senator, Jim Inhofe, is about the only Republican who is a vocal opponent of Human-caused Climate Change. The rest of them don’t want to talk about it because they are afraid of what the Leftwing Media will say about them if they don’t toe the Human-caused Climate Change line.

Republicans are scared to death of the Leftwing Media. And you can understand why, look at what they have done, and are doing, to Trump. Trump can take the beating, but these other Republicans can’t take a beating and want no part of that fight. They run like rabbits from the attention of the Leftwing Media. They want to fly under the radar and it’s hard to do that when you take a stand, so they don’t take a stand that would bring the ire of the Left.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 7, 2020 8:04 pm

The warmunists were barely able to get the Paris accords. If they have to cobble together another agreement to replace it, that will take years.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 8, 2020 5:00 am

I think this is a waste of time to submit the Paris Climate treaty to the U.S. Senate.

Do you want the US in the Paris Treaty and having it being enforced by the government (including payments to the green slush fund)? IF not, then it’s exactly the kind of “waste of time” you want. The Senate rejecting it would force the Dem to start the process of “introducing a similar treaty sometime later”. Treaties like that don’t magically appear over night (What became the Paris accord was initiated during the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference and wasn’t finished and signed until 2016 – 5 years later) even if you could whip up a document that everyone magically and immediately agreed on without having to negotiate over conflicting points of contention, it still would take time for nations to get together and sign off on it.

I imagine there will be a lot of Republican Senators that would not want to be put on the spot over Human-caused Climate Change

A few, sure, and there’s also a lot of Democrat Senators that would not want to be put on the spot over it for the opposite reasons. The point is, there isn’t a 2/3rds majority that would be willing to sign off on it (if there were Obama would have sent it to the Senate in a heartbeat).

Republicans are scared to death of the Leftwing Media

Republicans need to grow a spine. the Leftwing Media is not their friend and will never be their friend no matter how many times they cave in. Because if they can’t take a stand then they may as well go home for all the good they are.

Alan
December 7, 2020 7:14 pm

If the Senate rejects the Paris Agreement, what stops the fraudulently elected president Biden from just making another agreement?

ScarletMacaw
Reply to  Alan
December 7, 2020 7:28 pm

Nothing will stop the making of a new agreement, although considering the bureaucratic inertia it would take a couple of years. In either case the precedent will be established that these “agreements” are actually treaties.

Bryan A
Reply to  Alan
December 7, 2020 7:56 pm

Once Congress has denied the treaty (provided they do) President Biden could face impeachment for overstepping congressional powers. Any further potential Treaty agreements must go through Congress at that point.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bryan A
December 8, 2020 5:06 am

Impeachment would require the Republicans taking back the house. But at least it would be more of a legitimate grounds for impeachment than what the Dems had against Trump. And I suspect the Republicans would give the Biden administration fair process for telling their side in the house hearings, unlike what the Dems did to Trump.

tsk tsk
Reply to  Bryan A
December 8, 2020 12:48 pm

It would deserve impeachment and conviction, but it enables SCOTUS to slap him down repeatedly. That’s a much lower bar to clear.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan
December 7, 2020 8:07 pm

Time and the lack of cooperation from the 100 something other countries in the world.
The Paris agreement almost died before delivery. It took every ounce of negotiating power Obama had to drag it over the line.
Do you really think Dementia Joe or MachineGun Harris have what it takes to shepherd a new agreement?

commieBob
December 7, 2020 7:36 pm

There are plenty of international agreements that don’t need the Senate’s approval. link

Oh my aching head this is complicated.

TonyL
December 7, 2020 7:45 pm

If or when Biden and Co. take over, I think the Paris Accords will be the least of our problems in the US. His proposed Cabinet seems to be all Left Wingers, Globalists, and Obama retreads. He has assembled a separate group of advisors which are all Big Money, High Tech, and Finance.
This does not bode well for the middle class.

Just a reminder, a “blast from the past”, if you will:
Remember the TPP? The Trans-Pacific Partnership the Obama administration was so eager to pass.
Way, way down, buried down in the depths of it, where it could escape notice, was a gem.
There was a provision to the effect that *all agreements and understandings will become binding with the force of law*. This would obviously have made the Paris Accords law. But more, for example, UN resolutions on gun control would become US domestic law, even to the point of superseding the US Constitution.
If that was allowed to happen, and was allowed to stand as a legal precedent, there is only one thing left to say:
Adios muchachos!
And that was just the start of it.

Steve Case
December 7, 2020 7:45 pm

… provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…

Bring it on!

Bryan A
Reply to  Steve Case
December 7, 2020 8:03 pm

“Two thirds present”
Simply make certain that of those present, 2/3 are likely to vote NAY rather than AYE and put the remainder on a committee in Paris at the time of the vote

Duker
Reply to  Bryan A
December 7, 2020 10:49 pm

Hundreds of binding international agreements are in force already , by all recent Presidents, not having been ‘treaties’ which senate has approved.

“Would it surprise you to learn that he’s approved only one fewer treaty in his first two years than President Barack Obama did in his last two?

The United States enters into an astonishing number of international agreements. So far in 2019, we’ve signed 13 of them.”
The difference between treaty or agreement is zero and mostly in the name.

One was a treaty to make more books available in formats the blind can read.

https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/treaties-the-age-donald-trump

Bryan A
Reply to  Duker
December 8, 2020 5:20 am

How many of those “Agreements” force the U.S. into oversight by outside unelected foreign governments?

Duker
Reply to  Bryan A
December 8, 2020 12:09 pm

I think the Paris Accords/Agreement/Treaty is misguided approach but there is no enforcement by foreign governments. The US had actually exceeded the targets even when Trump suspended the agreement

Eric Von Salzen
December 7, 2020 7:56 pm

I wish Trump had submitted the Paris Agreement to the Senate early in his term. I understand why he didn’t: he had higher priorities. If he does so now, though, he calls the Obama bluff. Obama knew all along he could never get 2/3 Senate approval, but he thought by calling it an “agreement” he could give it some kind of status that Pres. Hillary would be able to use to leverage legislative and (even more important) administrative action to “save the world” from fracking and fossil fuels, and support subsidies for wind and solar. Now Pres. Biden (I assume he’ll be President, but we can still pray) would try the same leverage. Having the “agreement” submitted to the Senate and rejected will make it harder for the Democrats to use Paris to support “environmental” legislation. If you really think that the current Senate would approve the Paris accords by 2/3, then you think we’re screwed even worse than I do. I think this is a fight worth fighting.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Eric Von Salzen
December 8, 2020 5:36 am

” Now Pres. Biden (I assume he’ll be President, but we can still pray)”

Sidney Powell said yesterday she thinks the U.S. Supreme Court may take up lawsuits on at least three of the contested States, and if she wins those three cases, Trump will remain as president.

Senator Ted Cruz will argue the Pennsylvania case, if the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear it, and it looks to me like they will. The law is pretty clear in this case. The Democrat Pennsylvania legislature passed laws allowing for late vote counting and other changes, that the Pennsylvania Constitution does not allow, and the only way the State election laws can be changed is by changing the State Constituion, which the Democrats did not do.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 9, 2020 2:37 am

And the latest twist in this Saga is Texas has filed suit against Penn., Georgia, Michigan and Wis. in a case that goes directly to the U.S. Supreme Court (no lower courts get to try and block it, as suits between states are the exclusive domain of the US Supreme Court per the Judiciary Act of 1789). Several other states are supposedly looking to join Texas’s suit. Put your money in popcorn futures.

December 7, 2020 8:36 pm

1. The us is out of the Paris accord. it ended just before the election. Therefore there’s nothing to submit.
2. If Biden brings us back into it
a. If nothing is done, the Senate ignores it. If its not binding, we don’t have to send any money, or do anything.
b. if a court says it is binding, the Senate sues, they will because the Senate doesn’t want to give up the ability to approve treaties, and wins because the constitution says the Senate must approve. The Supreme court has a majority of literalist.

December 7, 2020 8:38 pm

Note If it’s not a treaty, and just a pinky promise from the President, then the Senate can feel free to ignore it.

Dudley Horscroft
December 7, 2020 9:27 pm

ISTR that the Kyoto Treaty was submitted to the Senate by some President or other. Result 98 No, 0 Ay, 2 did not vote.

Please confirm, and if correct what makes one suppose that things have changed much now so that 2/3 of the Senate would vote Yes to Paris?

John Endicott
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
December 8, 2020 2:46 am

Kyoto wasn’t submitted. The Senate passed a resolution (95-0) that basically rejected it and any other agreement coming out of Kyoto.

S.Res.98 — 105th Congress
Introduced in Senate (06/12/1997) voted on (07/25/1997)

Declares that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997 or thereafter which would: (1) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex 1 Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period; or (2) result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

Calls for any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification to be accompanied by: (1) a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement it; and (2) an analysis of the detailed financial costs which would be incurred by, and other impacts on, the U.S. economy.

Dudley Horscroft
December 7, 2020 9:41 pm

This updates my previous email:

From Wikipaedia:

“The US signed the [Kyoto] Protocol on 12 November 1998,[98] during the Clinton presidency. To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and “would seriously harm the economy of the United States”. The resolution passed 95–0.[99] Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty,[100] it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.

When George W. Bush was elected US president in 2000, he was asked by US Senator Chuck Hagel what his administration’s position was on climate change. Bush replied that he took climate change “very seriously”,[101] but that he opposed the Kyoto treaty because “it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy.”[102] The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research reported in 2001:

This policy reversal received a massive wave of criticism that was quickly picked up by the international media. Environmental groups blasted the White House, while Europeans and Japanese alike expressed deep concern and regret. […] Almost all world leaders (e.g. China, Japan, South Africa, Pacific Islands, etc.) expressed their disappointment at Bush’s decision.

In response to this criticism, Bush stated: “I was responding to reality, and reality is the nation has got a real problem when it comes to energy”. The Tyndall Centre called this “an overstatement used to cover up the big benefactors of this policy reversal, i.e., the US oil and coal industry, which has a powerful lobby with the administration and conservative Republican congressmen.”[103]

As of 2020, the US is the only signatory that has not ratified the Protocol.[104] The US accounted for 36% of emissions in 1990. As such, for the treaty to go into legal effect without US ratification, it would require a coalition including the EU, Russia, Japan, and small parties. A deal, without the US Administration, was reached in the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.[105]”

President Bush’s statement is a still correct statement and is equally applicable to the Paris Agreement. And who, if anyone, is this Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research ?

bonbon
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
December 8, 2020 2:49 am

Tyndall is part of Oxford Uni. U.K. Dr. “John” Schellnhuber, CBE, who founded the Potsdam Climate Institute then became chief of Tyndall Climate.
The good Dr. was awarded the CBE at Berlin Embassy in 2004 for services to the Crown.
This is the great de-carbonizer, and the author of Germany’s Great Transformation, and the Vatican’s Laudato Si paean to Gaia.

The Queen is definitely not amused by Trump’s trashing of the Paris “Agreement”. The House of Lords internal policy document states clearly the “special relationship” would not survive a second Trump Prersidency, and just look at what they (Lord Malloch-Brown) did to the election.

John Endicott
Reply to  bonbon
December 8, 2020 3:40 am

As not everyone follows the same conspiracy websites that you do, please do tell: what exactly did Lord Malloch-Brown do to the election? And have you passed that information on to the appropriate authorities? if not, why not? I’ll grab some popcorn.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dudley Horscroft
December 8, 2020 5:48 am

““The US signed the [Kyoto] Protocol on 12 November 1998,[98] during the Clinton presidency. To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and “would seriously harm the economy of the United States”.”

And nothing has changed.

Just like with the Kyoto agreement, the Paris Climate agreement would not require developing countries to make emission reductions and both would seriously harm the economy of the United States.

The previous Kyoto vote was 95-0 against. Democrats and Republicans. We ought to bring that up if, and/or when, it is proposed that the United States rejoin the Paris Climate agreement.

Have Democrats just gotten a lot more stupid in the intervening years between the Kyoto agreement and the Paris Climate agreement?

joe
December 7, 2020 10:22 pm

One point in the Paris Accord, is that China, the world leader in the production of CO2, is not obligated to reduce their CO2 at all. You should know, that China now produces 140% of the Worlds CO2, compared to the US. China is the world’s greatest manufacturing power, and they will have to do (ta da) Nothing!!
The US has pledged to reduce its CO2 output, as obligated by the Paris Accord. CO2 can be measured in several ways, so control can be verified. But China has only to reduce its Carbon Intensity, which is not the same thing at all, as reducing CO2. In fact, the only way of measuring Carbon Intensity, is to use data, supplied by the Chinese!
Mr. President, please do not allow a return to the Paris Accord. It is highly damaging to US manufacturing, and will allow manufacturing to increase in China, without hindrance. Remember that China is the number one producer of CO2, so how is the Paris Accord to help the problem of Global Warming? The US government should not fall for this trap. NO to the Paris Accord.

mwhite
December 8, 2020 12:59 am

So how exactly do you put this idea into the mind of President Trump?????????????????

joe
Reply to  mwhite
December 8, 2020 12:14 pm

That is the reason why President Trump ended the Paris Accord. But the President Elect, Mr. Biden, is for the Paris Accord. He needs to end the Accord also. And a sorry note, almost every poster here about the Paris Accord, appears to have no knowledge at all of the term “Carbon Intensity” Try doing a little work, please. Look up the definition, and you will see why China chose this definition, and not to agree to the actual reduction of their CO2 output. Reducing “Carbon Intensity” is NOT the same as reducing CO2, and the Carbon Intensity figure can be easily manipulated by the Chinese. That is why the Paris Accord is good for them, and bad for the United States.

Reply to  joe
December 9, 2020 6:03 am

Saying “the definition” implies that there’s only one definition. I found two.

In both definitions of Carbon Intensity (CI), the numerator is carbon dioxide emissions, but the denominator differs.

1. This definition uses energy consumption as the denominator. Seems designed specifically to punish coal, and to reward wind, solar, hydro & nuclear. It gives no points at all for energy efficiency. If you double your CO2 emissions and triple your energy consumption, you will have “improved” your national Carbon Intensity, even if your GDP doesn’t increase at all:
https://www.opisnet.com/glossary-term/carbon-intensity-ci/

Carbon intensity (CI): The amount of carbon by weight emitted per unit of energy consumed. A common measure of carbon intensity is weight of carbon per British thermal unit (Btu) of energy. When there is only one fossil fuel under consideration, the carbon intensity and the emissions coefficient are identical. When there are several fuels, carbon intensity is based on their combined emissions coefficients weighted by their energy consumption levels.

2. This definition is less misanthropic. It uses GDP as the denominator, instead of energy consumption. Like the first definition, it punishes coal and allows China to increase CO2 emissions while boasting of decreased CI. But unlike the first definition, it rewards energy efficiency and economic growth even more than it rewards wind, solar, hydro & nuclear. By this definition, if you double your CO2 emissions but triple your GDP, you will have “improved” (reduced) your national Carbon Intensity:
https://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/#_ftn3

Carbon intensity (economy): The amount of carbon by weight emitted per unit of economic activity—most commonly gross domestic product (GDP) (CO2/GDP). The carbon intensity of the economy is the product of the energy intensity of the economy and the carbon intensity of the energy supply. Note: this value is currently expressed as the full weight of the carbon dioxide emitted.

Both definitions allow growing economies to increase their emissions of the precious air fertilizer while boasting that they’ve reduced their “carbon intensity.” That, at least, is a good thing, because CO2 emissions are highly beneficial.

joe
Reply to  Dave Burton
December 9, 2020 3:59 pm

The Paris Accord defines the Carbon Intensity as the latter – Amount of Carbon divided by the GDP. What this means in plain terms, is that since the Chinese GDP has been growing continually, that they do NOT have to reduce their CO2! Please use a little thought here. Since a Chinese GDP that is growing is the denominator, Chinese Carbon Intensity is always decreasing! Gee, what a bunch of dummies we are!! Moreover, since GDP is by definition, defined by the Chinese Government, China can adjust that figure to be beneficial to them. And finally, once again, China produces 140% of the worlds Carbon Dioxide! Got that!! 140% !! Meanwhile, the US intends to reduce its manufacturing by up to 15%, under the terms of the Paris Accord.
So explain, how is this going to reduce overall World Carbon Dioxide output?
Stop the babbling, this is not about Congress, or what the rules are in the US treaty obligations, it is all about CHINA !!! Why is that so tough to understand?
They produce 140% of the World’s CO2, and it is continually rising, as the Chinese economy increases. President Trump was correct to leave the Paris Accord.
Meanwhile, Biden, President Elect, plans to return to the Paris Accord!!
Oh great global warming folk, oh what a bunch of thinkers you are….not.

Reply to  joe
December 10, 2020 1:33 am

joe wrote, “China produces 140% of the world’s Carbon Dioxide!”

Clever trick. 😉

Joe
Reply to  joe
December 10, 2020 10:42 am

The correct way of reporting CO2 output is 1) China is the world’s highest producer of CO2, and the US is second. Of course, there are many other nations contributing, like India and the European Union. 2) For every 100 molecules of CO2 produced by the US, China produces 140 molecules.
So understanding that is important, when thinking of the Paris Accord, wherein the US has pledged to reduce it’s CO2 output by around 15%, and China, will do nothing. So, the effect on CO2 reduction will be negligible, but US industry and manufacturing will be substantially impacted.
And another fact: The US had contributed one billion dollars to the Paris Accord, before leaving, and China, ZERO. That fits in with China’s contribution to reducing CO2, which will be ZERO.
And thanks to Dave for reading this. Not many people take the trouble to understand the details of the Paris Accord, and why they matter.
It is difficult to think of Carbon Intensity, and why it is of importance, and so few take the trouble to understand it. But it has to be done.

JoHo
December 8, 2020 1:40 am

Did Obama sign an agreement knowing full-well it was a Treaty? If so could this be described as doing this ultra-vires?

Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2020 3:18 am

If wishes were horses. TraitorTrump doesn’t give a sheet about the country, especially now, and his actions vis a vis the election prove it. So why the frack would he bother with Paris? He’s too busy lying about the election.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2020 3:42 am

The TDS is strong with this one. I’m sure a medical professional can prescribe you some meds to help with that, Bruce.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  John Endicott
December 8, 2020 3:54 am

No John, you couldn’t be more wrong, moron. I voted for Trump. Twice. Not liking the outcome of an election and lying about it are two completely different things.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2020 4:45 am

Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2020 8:29 am

You just *think* you voted for Trump! 🙂

Some Democrat election official might have decided your vote didn’t count and threw it away. Or some algorithm decided to award three-fourths of your vote to Biden, and one-fourth to Trump.

If Trump doesn’t have enough evidence to change the election, then he doesn’t have it. The process has to play out and everyone will see the details. Trump is operating firmly within the law.

If Trump can’t satisfy the Justices, then Trump will concede. Trump is not a lawless Hitler as the Democrats portray him.

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 9, 2020 2:49 am

Regardless of what Trump can prove in court (should he ever get the opportunity, lower courts have been trying to squash his suits before they get that far), now that “TraitorTexas”, as our TDS suffering friend no doubt will think of them, has filed suit, the Supreme Court will have to at least look at some of the issues involved (they’re the court with exclusive jurisdiction in the type of Suit Texas filed).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2020 6:07 am

Yeah, that’s what Momma used to tell me when I complained about not having something: “If wishes were horses, the beggars would ride.”

She was telling me you have to do more than just wish something would happen, you have take action to make it happen (I felt I had to elaborate for the younger generation. They may not get it :).

joe
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 9, 2020 4:16 pm

Trump left the Paris Accord! He is not for it!!

John Endicott
December 8, 2020 4:45 am

Pull the other one, it has bells on.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
December 8, 2020 4:46 am

Sorry for the misplaced post, this should have been in response to TDS Cobb. Not sure why it ended up here.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  John Endicott
December 8, 2020 6:04 am

M’kay, Moron John.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 8, 2020 6:18 am

Insult all you want, Cobb, it says more about you than me.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  John Endicott
December 8, 2020 6:36 am

Of course it does, John. You just keep telling yourself that. Moron.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
December 9, 2020 1:54 am

LOL. Keep digging man, you are doing yourself no favors, but keep digging as it’s fun watching TDS sufferers meltdown.

Adam Gallon
December 8, 2020 5:58 am

The issue is, is he bright enough to do it? Is he bothered enough to do it & will business interests want him to do it?

Mickey Reno
December 8, 2020 5:58 am

You just have to love when Australians like Nick Stokes become American Constitution scholars. He’s almost as good at it as was the Harvard professor of Constitutional law, Barack Obama.

I advocated for submitting the Paris accord to the Senate as soon as Trump took office. He didn’t do it then. He should do it now, even though he’s almost out of office, and the US is officially out of the deal.

BTW, I also urged Trump and the Republicans to withdraw the US from the UNFCCC, the parent organization from the IPCC, and to withdraw the US from UN membership in general, and kick the UN HQ out of the United States. Like Woodrow Wilson’s disastrous predecessor, the League of Nations, the United Nations is an abject failure, and should be disbanded. The sooner, the better.

BobM
December 8, 2020 6:16 am

I don’t know the legislative rules of the Senate well enough to know if there is enough time left to have a vote. The Senate is currently not scheduled to be in session after December 18th, and this session of Congress ends on January 3, 2021. Better to introduce it in the next session of the Congress which begins at noon on January 3, 2021. The Republicans will still have the majority regardless of what happens in the Georgia runoff elections, as a new President isn’t inaugurated until January 20th. Once introduced, it can be scheduled for debate and a vote. Should control of the Senate change with the new Administration (a 50-50 tie being broken by the new Vice-President) it will still have been introduced and put onto the Senate legislative calendar. Even if a new Senate leadership scuttles a vote, a new President Biden would have a tough time claiming adherence to an “agreement/treaty” that is currently before the Senate awaiting a vote during that two-year session of Congress.

John Endicott
Reply to  BobM
December 9, 2020 2:26 am

Excellent point on timing. Get it in there as soon as the next session starts as an Obama style hand-tying F-U to the incoming administration.

December 8, 2020 8:45 am

All good reasons to submit it to the Senate. But I worry a bit about the action, as there is still a finite chance it might pass. 100 years ago, the 16th Amendment (income tax) was passed and submitted to the states. Opposition supported this action with the belief that the states would never agree. Sadly, enough of them did. Cheers –

Duker
Reply to  agimarc
December 8, 2020 12:01 pm

The 16th was only to levy a tax without apportioning it among the states based on population. The Supreme court has previously said an income tax was constitutional under Article 1
“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
1861 was the first federal income tax
The 16th amendment was only to get around a tax case from the late 1890s
“In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not hold that all federal income taxes were unconstitutional, but rather held that income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were direct taxes and thus had to be apportioned among the states on the basis of population”

John Endicott
Reply to  agimarc
December 9, 2020 2:30 am

agimarc, without submission, Biden will sign us back on to it anyway. so you choices are
1) Do nothing, let Biden get away with signing us back on without ever submitting it for ratification and suffer the economic consequences
2) submit it before Biden can sign on which is most likely to result in the senate rejecting the agreement (failure to get 2/3rd), preventing Biden from legally joining the agreement. with a very slight chance of it actually passing the Senate (in which case it would be no practical difference from scenario 1).

Option 2 is by far the better of the two options.

December 8, 2020 9:40 am

What, Paul, you think that DEMOCRAT politicians should have to obey the actual U.S. Constitution? As written??

Don’t be ridiculous, you radical right-winger! Everyone knows the Constitution only constrains Republicans.

Next you’ll be claiming that activist Democrat judges don’t have the power to rewrite the Constitution at whim, to outlaw things that it protects, like communities of faith, and to protect things it doesn’t mention, which were universally illegal when it was enacted, like abortion and sodomy.

Paul Johnson
December 9, 2020 7:08 am

There’s another angle here.
A Biden administration would clearly re-enter the Paris Accord and act as though it were a binding treaty. They would enact executive orders, and perhaps legislation, that would seriously damage American industries. If those industries sue, friendly courts will back Biden’s actions as reflecting the will of the people. If the Accord is submitted as a treaty and soundly rejected, plaintiffs would have a much stronger case for rejecting onerous requirements.

paul courtney
Reply to  Paul Johnson
December 9, 2020 8:02 am

Mr. Johnson: Indeed. Submitting for a down vote is a political move, on a political question. Our friend Mr. Stokes thinks Presidents are prohibited from using plain language in the Constitution to make a politcal point, that makes it more difficult for the other side to move (as dems have openly stated) to use the courts and admin agencies to accomplish democrat political goals when they lack votes. If that fails, dems will propose allowing senate votes by paper ballot. Dems can’t govern, but they can steal an election.

Paul Johnson
Reply to  paul courtney
December 9, 2020 2:39 pm

As with the Kyoto Protocol, the Senate can initiate its own resolution like the Byrd-Hagel resolution to pre-emptively disapprove any international treaty the exempts developing countries and harms the U.S. economy.

John Endicott
Reply to  Paul Johnson
December 10, 2020 2:46 am

The problem, Paul, is such a move would require a cloture vote, Just as there isn’t a 2/3rds majority that would ratify the treaty, there isn’t the 60 votes needed to move past cloture.

paul courtney
Reply to  John Endicott
December 11, 2020 11:00 am

Mr. Endicott: Mr. Stokes said “can’t”. Not gonna race ahead with him to other things. Not sure cloture applies to treaties, not even gonna look it up. Can President submit? Where does it say he can’t? If you have something on that, love to hear it. I noticed Mr. Stokes disappear when he could not race ahead. I don’t think that is what you were doing.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
December 14, 2020 2:46 am

Paul, that cloture comment was in response to the other Paul’s post, not Nicks. I agree with you about Nick’s “can’t” being nonsense, he’s even been given examples of past presidents going to the senate *before* anything was signed. In this case, we have a “treaty” that’s been signed once and is threatened to be “signed” again next month, plenty of scope for the current president to fix the past ones error in not sending it to the senate/prevent the next guy from making the same error by submitting it to the Senate’s “advice and consent” per the constitution

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
December 14, 2020 2:51 am

Oh, and to be specific, since you seem a little confused, the cloture comment is not in regard to treaties themselves (which require a 2/3rds senate vote to pass, which is more than the 60 votes needed for cloture anyway, making cloture irrelevant even if it did apply IE if you have enough votes to pass, you have more than enough for cloture). It was in regards to resolutions (such as the Byrd-Hagel resolution that was passed in anticipation of Kyoto. Kyoto itself was never submitted to the Senate for ratification because the Byrd-Hagel resolution made it clear it would not pas.)

John Endicott
Reply to  Paul Johnson
December 10, 2020 2:50 am

In short, the senate it too closely and deeply divided today, where everything (particularly in regards to deeply political issues such as so-called “climate change”) happens along party lines, you won’t see the kind of bipartisan co-operation on a Byrd-Hagel resolution type resolution today that you saw back then.

%d bloggers like this: