Folks... it's SO friggin' blatant...
From The Hill...
* * * * *
Republican senators accused President Obama Tuesday of deliberately circumventing Congress in his attempt to reach a broad U.N. deal on climate change.
Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), chairman of a Foreign Relations Committee sub-panel, said at a Tuesday hearing that any deal negotiators reach at the talks in Paris in December needs to go through Senate ratification.
* THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT ANY DEAL NEGOTIATORS REACH AT THE TALKS IN PARIS IN DECEMBER NEEDS TO GO THROUGH SENATE RATIFICATION. UNFORTUNATELY, THE CONSTITUTION IS AS DEAD AS ARE THE FOUNDERS.
“Just like the Kyoto Protocol and the United Nations framework convention on climate change, any agreement that commits our nation to targets or timetables must go through the process established by the Founders in our Constitution. It must be submitted to the United States Senate for its advice and consent,” Barrasso told Todd Stern, the State Department’s top negotiator for the deal.
* WHERE WAS BARRASSO WHEN THE REPUBLICANS WERE CONSPIRING WITH THE DEMOCRATS TO TURN THE ADVICE AND CONSENT CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION ON ITS HEAD REGARDING THE TPP TREATY?
“The president has made clear that he doesn’t see it that way, as was the case with the Iranian nuclear deal,” he said.
Barrasso was the only Republican at the hearing, which was dominated by Democrats who thanked Stern for his work.
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who wanted to have a joint hearing on the talks with the Environment and Public Works Committee, which he chairs, said in a statement that the deal should go through the Senate.
“While we can certainly disagree on the underlying policies, I believe we, as the Senate, should support basic oversight responsibilities, especially when they are consistent with past practice."
* WHILE IT'S GRATIFYING TO KNOW THAT SENATOR INHOFE "BELIEVES" THIS, BUT EVEN IF HE DIDN'T THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT AS FAR AS I'M AWARE THE ADVICE AND CONSENT CLAUSE HAS NOT BE OVER-RIDDEN BY ANY NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
“President Obama and his administrative officials are going out of their way to circumvent the role of the U.S. Senate in this negotiating process and I am disappointed that the minority would enable such behavior,” he said.
* HE'S DISAPPOINTED. (HOW'BOUT SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MCCONNELL? IS MCCONNELL "DISAPPOINTED" AS WELL? HOW'BOUT CRUZ... PAUL... RUBIO...? HOW'BOUT LINDSEY GRAHAM?)
Republicans have long accused Obama of working with international leaders to craft a deal that would not require Senate approval, as treaties generally do under the Constitution.
* FUNNY... I DON'T RECALL ANY CONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE REVOLVING AROUND "GENERALLY." I'M PRETTY SURE THE WORD THE HILL IS LOOKING FOR IS "ALWAYS" - AS IN "ALL TREATIES ALWAYS REQUIRE SENATE PASSAGE."
* JUST FOR THE HECK OF IT, LET'S REFRESH OURSELVES:
The Advice and consent clause is a clause in the U.S. Constitution. This clause states that the President can exercise his/her power to enter into treaties with other countries only with the advice and consent of the Senate. This clause is referred under USCS Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl 2. this provision of the U.S. Constitution reads as:
“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; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments”.
* FOLKS... IT'S NOT EVEN THAT A BARE MAJORITY OF THE SENATE HAS TO AGREE; TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATORS PRESENT MUST AGREE!
Stern said whether the deal would go through the Senate hinges largely on whether countries’ individual contributions are legally binding — a factor that has not yet been finalized in the negotiations.
“We don’t know yet what the elements of the agreement are going to be and so it’s hard to speculate at this time,” he said. “We’re pushing hard for an agreement that does not include binding targets.”
* WHAT UTTER NONSENSE. IN ENGLISH WHAT STERN IS TRYING TO DO IS POINT TO A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF NATIONAL ACTION. IN OTHER WORDS, CUTTING TO THE CHASE, WHAT HE'S PREPARING THE GROUND WORK FOR IS TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT LATER - AFTER AN "AGREEMENT" IS SIGNED - THAT IT'S AN "EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT" AND THUS SENATE APPROVAL WAS NOT AND IS NOT REQUIRED. THE FICTION IS THAT THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE TERMS WILL BE VIA FUTURE "EXECUTIVE" ACTION - SUPPOSEDLY A DIFFERENT AUTHORITY THAN "TREATY" AUTHORITY. UTTER NONSENSE. IT WOULD BE AN EXECUTIVE POWER GRAB PURE AND SIMPLE.
Meanwhile, the panel’s Democrats were very happy with Stern’s efforts.
“The Paris agreement takes us in the right direction, signing up countries, developed and developing, to halt the climate crisis,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), the panel’s top Democrat. “The United States must lead and set an example for other countries. This is the right thing to do to protect our economy in the long term.”
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) accused Republicans of denying science in their opposition to the deal.
“They say they’re not scientists and I would agree with them,” she said. “They ought to be listening to the 97 percent of scientists who tell us human action and activities is causing too much carbon pollution.”