THIS IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS !!! ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION. WAKE UP !! WAKE UP !! WAKE UP !! WAKE UP !! WE ALL HAVE BEEN SAYING IT FOR A LONG TIME, BUT IF YOU HAVE NEVER PICKED UP YOUR PHONE, OR DONE ANYTHING TO BE INVOLVED YOU BETTER DO IT NOW. https://youtube/watch?v=csf0nYSutMg#t=128 Barack Obama is MAKING A TREATY - Not an Agreement, not a Contract, BUT A TREATY. This Treaty is CLIMATE CHANGE. This Treaty is going to be made WITHOUT A 2/3rds Vote from the SENATE !! WHERE IS THE MEDIA ??? LYING, Covering up, and not telling you. But the New York Times WROTE ABOUT IT Here is an excerpt !! The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress. In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies — but would voluntarily pledge to specific levels of emissions cuts and to channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change. Countries might then be legally obligated to report their progress toward meeting those pledges at meetings held to identify those nations that did not meet their cuts. “There’s some legal and political magic to this,” said Jake Schmidt, an expert in global climate negotiations with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group. “They’re trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold” in the Senate. Then of course the Times makes it Alarming The strategy comes as scientists warn that the earth is already experiencing the first signs of human-caused global warming — more severe drought and stronger wildfires, rising sea levels and more devastating storms — and the United Nations heads toward what many say is the body’s last chance to avert more catastrophic results in the coming century. IN ORDER FOR HIM TO GET HIS CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVES PASSED OBAMA IS GOING TO GO WITH THE UN - WITHOUT THE SENATE AND MAKE A TREATY WITH THE UN. ARTICLE 2 - SECTION 2 - CLAUSE 2 WHY IS THE SENATE INVOLVED - BECAUSE AT THE TIME THE SENATE WAS APPOINTED BY THE STATES. THIS KEPT THE STATES INVOLVED SO THEY DID NOT LOSE THEIR SOVEREIGNTY UNDER THE 10TH AMENDMENT. BUT THE 17TH AMENDMENT TOOK THE POWER FROM THE STATES, BUT IT NEVER TOOK THE POWER FROM THE SENATE. 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 Court of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. FEDERALIST PAPERS #75 !!!! constitutingamerica.org/blog/federalist-no-75/ The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madisons terms, a partial agency in the Presidents foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the people, no role in the process. Midway through the Constitutional Convention, a working draft had assigned the treaty-making power to the Senate, but the Framers, apparently considering the traditional role of a nation-states executive in making treaties, changed direction and gave the power to the President, but with the proviso of the Senates Advice and Consent. In a formal sense, then, treaty-making became a mixture of executive and legislative power. Most people of the time recognized the actual conduct of diplomacy as an executive function, but under Article VI treaties were, like statutes, part of the supreme Law of the Land. Thus, as Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 75, the two branches were appropriately combined: The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign relations point out the executive as the most fit in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust and the operation of treaties as laws plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them. Another reason for involving both President and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.
Posted on: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 17:14:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015