Why didn't Obama have the Paris Accord Treaty ratified by the Senate?

[Bigdog]

"Now, the reason that they’re telling us that the Paris Accord is a nontreaty is because that evades the requirements of the Constitution to ratify it. The Iran deal has never been ratified. The Senate wouldn’t do it. The Iran deal… That’s why it’s not a treaty. This is not a treaty. A treaty must be ratified by the Senate. This treaty would never… Obama wouldn’t even present the Paris Accord to the Senate because there is not a senate that would sign on to this. Even when the Democrats ran the Senate, they would not sign on to this.

It is that horrible. Certainly, this Senate would not sign on to it. It’s two-thirds, by the way, folks, of the Senate that must sign to ratify. So they present this as “a binding international commitment” in order to timid the Trump administration into staying in it. Hey, it’s not a treaty! You don’t have to get the Senate involved. You don’t have to go up to Capitol Hill to argue to those knuckleheads. It’s not a treaty; we don’t need to go the constitutional route. You can sign it, Mr. President, and commit us to nothing.

“Under Article 18 of the treaty on treaties…” Did you know such a thing existed? I didn’t, either. There is a treaty that we signed on treaties. It would be like a driving license manual on driving licenses. There’s a treaty on treaties. “Under Article 18 of the treaty on treaties, once a nation signs a treaty — or merely does something that could be interpreted as ‘express[ing] its consent to be bound by the treaty’ — that nation is ‘obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.'”

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...ris-agreement/

[Lightbringer]

Why didn't Obama have the Paris Accord Treaty ratified by the Senate?

Because they wouldn't have passed it.

[anatta]

Because the Congress is a servile pack of weasels to executive powers.

[tsuke]

cuz

[Lightbringer]

cuz

LMFAO!

[Bigdog]

cuz

LOL

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Because fuck them.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The constitutional provisions for making an article II treaty are not the only means of pursuing an international agreement. For one thing a treaty is pretty damn hardcore. In the eyes of the constitution, it is the law of the land equal to the constitution itself:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Notice how treaties are off to the side in a clause there, rather than subordinate to the constitution like regular laws are. That is a pretty significant power. The founders intended for a treaty to be our word, and our word to be our bond, and for nothing to be able to get in the way of that. That's the reason most international agreements are merely executive agreements, or just regular laws passed by the senate that happen to codify some internationally agreed upon item within our law.

[Bigdog]

Because the Congress is a servile pack of weasels to executive powers.

Yep ... and there would have been too many senate democrats on record ... voting NO.

[Cypress]

Because he didn't have to.

The Paris Agreement was passed by Executive action, thus not requiring senate approval. It could have taken you five minutes to learn this on your own.

There were no legally enforceable GHG reductions requirements, so Senate ratification was not necessary.

The Paris climate agreement had aspirational goals, and required planning and monitoring. But since there were no legal enforcement authorities or sanctions, Mitch "Turtle" McConnell's and "Lying" Ted Cruz's opinions simply did not matter

The only reason wingnuts hated the Paris climate deal was because Obama's name was associated with it. It's an emotional response from lower life forms. The Paris agreement was in fact pretty benign, and amounted to basically a "gentleman's agreement". The emotional reactions and wailings of wingnuts notwithstanding.

[anatta]

The constitutional provisions for making an article II treaty are not the only means of pursuing an international agreement. For one thing a treaty is pretty damn hardcore. In the eyes of the constitution, it is the law of the land equal to the constitution itself:



Notice how treaties are off to the side in a clause there, rather than subordinate to the constitution like regular laws are. That is a pretty significant power. The founders intended for a treaty to be our word, and our word to be our bond, and for nothing to be able to get in the way of that. That's the reason most international agreements are merely executive agreements, or just regular laws passed by the senate that happen to codify some internationally agreed upon item within our law.

true. good analysis. when we organize under an institution like the UN or an accord, perhaps an international executive agreement is called for.
But on the other hand -can a POTUS set long term policy ( outside of commander in chief) without the will of the people? ( Congress). That can't be good.

Congress is a doormat, and until it asserts itself it will continue to be so.

[Bigdog]

Congress is a doormat, and until it asserts itself it will continue to be so.

A doormat? ... or just unwilling to go on record, and actually accept responsibility for an action.

[anatta]

A doormat? ... or just unwilling to go on record, and actually accept responsibility for an action.

they are self imposed lap dogs.. not really interested in fulfilling their Constitutional roles..
"running dogs lackeys "as the Maoists once said

[Bigdog]

The Paris agreement was in fact pretty benign, and amounted to basically a "gentleman's agreement". The emotional reactions and wailings of wingnuts notwithstanding.

If it was so toothless, ... then why is the hysterical Left acting like it's the end of the world? That President Trump withdrawing is a death knell for all of humanity?

[Cypress]

If it was so toothless, ... then why is the hysterical Left acting like it's the end of the world? That President Trump withdrawing is a death knell for all of humanity?

Thank you for admitting you were completely uninformed and did not have the slightest understanding of the Paris Agreement.

I do not believe I have ever said it is "the end of the world".

What I think it does however, is undermine American leadership and undermine international efforts to combat and contain GHG emissions. Your hero, The Orange Clown, is saying he will not work with the international community on an environmental problem of utmost importance. He has no intention of doing so.

It is also just fucking embarrassing. Drumpf - against all science and reason - is on record saying global warming is a Chinese hoax. Pathetic.