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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment