Climate Deal: Up to 170 Nations Poised to Sign Landmark Agreement

[MrT]

Agreement. Not Treaty. Agreements are not legally binding and in fact cannot be submitted to the Senate because they arent treaties.

And yet they are still enforceable within the United States and persuasively enforceable against future administrations because those future administrations have to risk losing credibility on the international stage whenever they re-neg on an international agreement.

 

[American]

Yes...no ****. That's my point. Regulations to reduce CO2 emissions will not kill the economy specifically because there are thousands of factors that affect an economy.

Nice try, but you said kills the argument against those policies....................don't try that **** around here.

 

[MrT]

Seriously? Wikipedia? Since when did Wikipedia have sway over the US Constitution? I gave you the citation from the US Constitution. Did you read it?

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 - "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; ..."

Two thirds of the Senate have to concur, not Wikipedia, two thirds of the Senators present at the time of the vote.

Again, READ THE CONSTITUTION.

Dude...I have read the clause you cited. If you don't want to call it a treaty, then I don't care. If that helps you to sleep at night, go for it.

The fact remains that nearly every single international agreement made since 1939 has been through this method. And we still abide by dozens of those agreements even though they were executive only agreements. The same will apply in this case.

 

[MrT]

Nice try, but you said kills the argument against those policies....................don't try that **** around here.

I said that it kills the "will destroy the economy" argument against those policies. And that is still true.

 

[VanceMack]

And yet they are still enforceable within the United States and persuasively enforceable against future administrations because those future administrations have to risk losing credibility on the international stage whenever they re-neg on an international agreement.

No...they arent in any way shape or form 'enforceable'. The ONLY potentially enforceable end result of an executive agreement would come about IF...IF the president then signed an Executive Order instructing federal agencies to enforce the law at ways and means LESS restrictive than existing laws. EAs do nothing but signal the political will of the individual signing it. EOs impact ONLY the enforcement of existing laws and CANNOT legally impose greater than legal restrictions.

NOT a treaty. NOT legally binding.

 

[Fenton]

Climate Deal: Up to 170 Nations Poised to Sign Landmark Agreement - NBC News



This agreement does have plenty of issues, not the least of which is the fact that the agreement is not a legally binding treaty. However, we should remember that non-binding does not mean meaningless. Keep in mind that international agreements are made in good faith. When a country agrees to abide by certain conditions and then re-neg on those conditions, even if they were not legally bound originally, then the likelihood that country will be able to accomplish future goals that also rely on international cooperation decreases significantly. In fact, most international agreements rely on countries’ desire to continue having good relationships with their counterparts.

A key aspect of this deal will depend upon the United States and the next administration. Obama already plans to treat this deal like an executive only treaty such that congressional approval will not be necessary, but it will be possible for the next administration (although made more difficult once Obama approves), to unwind that treaty.

Just another reason to ensure that a Democrat wins the White House.

Landmark Deal !!

That ( Thank God ) isnt legally binding

And sure, Hillary should run on the fact that the GOP will reject this outright

Because " Global Warming "is the top concern among voters......Lol

 

[VanceMack]

Dude...I have read the clause you cited. If you don't want to call it a treaty, then I don't care. If that helps you to sleep at night, go for it.

The fact remains that nearly every single international agreement made since 1939 has been through this method. And we still abide by dozens of those agreements even though they were executive only agreements. The same will apply in this case.

You like wikipedia. YOU might want to follow your own advise and read on EAs. They are NOT treaties. You would be better served and look less foolish if you stopped trying to equate the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement

 

[VanceMack]

Landmark Deal !!

That ( Thank God ) isnt legally binding

And sure, Hillary should run on the fact that the GOP will reject this outright

Because " Global Warming "is the top concern among voters......Lol

If Hillary wins she would be as effective at promoting a 'treaty' on climate change as her husband was. The laughable part is the people so wrapped up in their right v left rhetoric that they stop to face 'reality'.

 

[MrT]

You like wikipedia. YOU might want to follow your own advise and read on EAs. They are NOT treaties. You would be better served and look less foolish if you stopped trying to equate the two.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_agreement

Like I told Beaudreux, if you don't want to call it a treaty and that helps you sleep better at night, feel free. I am going to keep using the phrase interchangeably when discussing this accord and other international agreements.

 

[WCH]

It kills nothing, because CO2 is only one of thousands of factors that affect an economy. Follow me with this one.

Let's not forget about the temperature change [or lack there of] with nearly 410 ppm of CO2 being measured. What arguments would that kill?

 

[American]

Let's not forget about the temperature change [or lack there of] with nearly 410 ppm of CO2 being measured. What arguments would that kill?

Tell me friend.

 

[VanceMack]

Like I told Beaudreux, if you don't want to call it a treaty and that helps you sleep better at night, feel free. I am going to keep using the phrase interchangeably when discussing this accord and other international agreements.

Why would YOU want to call it a 'treaty' when you KNOW it isnt a 'treaty'? I mean I can dig it if before you just didnt have a clue what you were talking about, but now you do. If you insist now on calling it a treaty...well...thats kinda a-silly and b-telling.

 

[WCH]

Tell me friend.

Most of the Left's opinion on the evils of CO2.

 

[American]

Why would YOU want to call it a 'treaty' when you KNOW it isnt a 'treaty'? I mean I can dig it if before you just didnt have a clue what you were talking about, but now you do. If you insist now on calling it a treaty...well...thats kinda a-silly and b-telling.

It makes him feel good about doing the wrong thing.

 

[Fenton]

If Hillary wins she would be as effective at promoting a 'treaty' on climate change as her husband was. The laughable part is the people so wrapped up in their right v left rhetoric that they stop to face 'reality'.

Thats a mighty big IF.

Hillary's currently under a Criminal FBI investigation and becomes more unlikable the more she shows her face.

Those that equate the lack of a indictment with a guaranteed win this November should think again.

Theres already huge anti-establishment sentiment and a establishment Politician getting away with something that would have put the average American in Prison for years wont sit well with the undecided or the middle of the road voters.

Its not going to sit well with Democrat voters who may chose just to stay home.

But if worse comes to worse and she's elected she's limited to a Executive order which has less authority than existing law.

 

[VanceMack]

It makes him feel good about doing the wrong thing.

I dont know man. Sometimes I see things people post, look at their intentionally deception in their rewriting of the actual words from the article THEY THEMSELVES cited and then when the facts are presented right in their face in a way that it is simply impossible to obfuscate or outright deny, they just dig in deeper. Its....weird.

The article was clear. NOT a treaty. The article was clear. NOT legally binding. The article was clear. NO enforceable actions. The article was clear. NO enforceable standards or levels. Its fluff. Its textual piffle. Its nothing. And they spent millions flying there to accomplish...nothing.

 

[VanceMack]

Thats a mighty big IF.

Hillary's currently under a Criminal FBI investigation and becomes more unlikable the more she shows her face.

Those that equate the lack of a indictment with a guaranteed win this November should think again.

Theres already huge anti-establishment sentiment and a establishment Politician getting away with something that would have put the average American in Prison for years wont sit well with the undecided or the middle of the road voters.

Its not going to sit well with Democrat voters who may chose just to stay home.

But if worse comes to worse and she's elected she's limited to a Executive order which has less authority than existing law.

Byrd-Hagel was passed UNANIMOUSLY. It guaranteed that this kind of ridiculous agreement will never see the senate floor.

 

[joG]

Climate Deal: Up to 170 Nations Poised to Sign Landmark Agreement - NBC News



This agreement does have plenty of issues, not the least of which is the fact that the agreement is not a legally binding treaty. However, we should remember that non-binding does not mean meaningless. Keep in mind that international agreements are made in good faith. When a country agrees to abide by certain conditions and then re-neg on those conditions, even if they were not legally bound originally, then the likelihood that country will be able to accomplish future goals that also rely on international cooperation decreases significantly. In fact, most international agreements rely on countries’ desire to continue having good relationships with their counterparts.

A key aspect of this deal will depend upon the United States and the next administration. Obama already plans to treat this deal like an executive only treaty such that congressional approval will not be necessary, but it will be possible for the next administration (although made more difficult once Obama approves), to unwind that treaty.

Just another reason to ensure that a Democrat wins the White House.

I would be surprised, if the level of changes and shifts in living conditions that will be required can be accomplished without Congressional support.

 

[Fenton]

Why would YOU want to call it a 'treaty' when you KNOW it isnt a 'treaty'? I mean I can dig it if before you just didnt have a clue what you were talking about, but now you do. If you insist now on calling it a treaty...well...thats kinda a-silly and b-telling.

The left shapes the truth a according to their ideology, not the other way around

So they have no problems spreading misinformation and base propaganda if its suits their purposes.

Its a Treaty, even it isnt and even if they have not a chance in hell of convincing anyone otherwise.

 

[jonny5]

Climate Deal: Up to 170 Nations Poised to Sign Landmark Agreement - NBC News



This agreement does have plenty of issues, not the least of which is the fact that the agreement is not a legally binding treaty. However, we should remember that non-binding does not mean meaningless. Keep in mind that international agreements are made in good faith. When a country agrees to abide by certain conditions and then re-neg on those conditions, even if they were not legally bound originally, then the likelihood that country will be able to accomplish future goals that also rely on international cooperation decreases significantly. In fact, most international agreements rely on countries’ desire to continue having good relationships with their counterparts.

A key aspect of this deal will depend upon the United States and the next administration. Obama already plans to treat this deal like an executive only treaty such that congressional approval will not be necessary, but it will be possible for the next administration (although made more difficult once Obama approves), to unwind that treaty.

Just another reason to ensure that a Democrat wins the White House.

Or doesnt win, depending on which side you are on. Things like this give your opponents just as much ammo as they do your side. Which is why the democrats lost congress after Obamacare was passed.

 

[eohrnberger]

94.3% of all treaties signed from 1939 until 1989 are executive only treaties.

I didn't know that. Thank you.

 

[Anthony60]

...Republicans in the Congress and Senate to continue their track record of doing less than any Congress in history rather than actually take steps to deal with problems that our country and our globe faces.

Psst... Got news for you, sometimes less is better. Our federal government and Obama have been more destructive to the founding principles of this nation than they have been supportive. In fact, I can't remember when they last supported the Constitution instead of attacking it.

So, the less they do the better.

 

[eohrnberger]

Also, here's an example of how the Democrat's using their own "special kind of logic" on this issue have dealt with this issue so far from the current Democrat controlled White House (for those with a logical thought process, please be warned and try not to throw things at the screen in anger or laugh uncontrollably in amazed disgust):

The results of the new EPA's rule adds up to a rounding error. Yup. Yet the cost is justified somehow? I'm not seeing it. Must be some magical lefty math that makes it add up somehow.

The left shapes the truth a according to their ideology, not the other way around

So they have no problems spreading misinformation and base propaganda if its suits their purposes.

Its a Treaty, even it isnt and even if they have not a chance in hell of convincing anyone otherwise.

Indeed. Shape the truth according to the dictated ideology. It really should be the other way around, if you are into science and all that math, yet they claim it's their opposition that's against science. :lamo

 

[Anthony60]

Dude...I have read the clause you cited. If you don't want to call it a treaty, then I don't care. If that helps you to sleep at night, go for it.

The fact remains that nearly every single international agreement made since 1939 has been through this method. And we still abide by dozens of those agreements even though they were executive only agreements. The same will apply in this case.

If it is a treaty, it MUST go to Congress for ratification before it is worth anything. If it's just some agreement that the President made, I just don't see that it is binding or he has any power to do that in the Constitution.

The President can't just make stuff up because he can't get Congressional approval on a treaty. The Constitution was written to protect we the people from government actions just like that.