Agreement. Not Treaty. Agreements are not legally binding and in fact cannot be submitted to the Senate because they arent treaties.
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.
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.
Nice try, but you said kills the argument against those policies....................don't try that **** around here.
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.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.
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.
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.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 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'.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
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
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?
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.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.
Tell me friend.
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.
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'.
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.It makes him feel good about doing the wrong thing.
Byrd-Hagel was passed UNANIMOUSLY. It guaranteed that this kind of ridiculous agreement will never see the senate floor.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.
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.
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.
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.
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....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.
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 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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?