Obama Pushes for UN Climate Change Rules Without Congress
Liberals haven’t latched on to “climate change” because they actually believe it’s true — they’ve latched on because it enables them to accomplish goals that fit into their political agenda. Obama is doing just that, bypassing Congress to enter an agreement with the United Nations, Constitution be damned.
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.
“If you want a deal that includes all the major emitters, including the U.S., you cannot realistically pursue a legally binding treaty at this time,” said Paul Bledsoe, a top climate change official in the Clinton administration who works closely with the Obama White House on international climate change policy.
Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.
Obama campaigned in 2008 on his experience as a “constitutional scholar”, which is a laugh, considering how little the Constitution actually matters to him. And interesting that liberals who cry “bully” anytime someone does something they don’t like — say, not allow a lesbian couple to get married on their private property — yet here they are, pushing a treaty that will “name and shame” countries that don’t do what they want them to do. What’s the word for that? Because hypocritical doesn’t seem strong enough.
After his 20-year old son overdosed on drugs, Mike Stollings decided to post a photo of his body at the funeral home on Facebook out of grief and guilt. The...Read More
Chicago, Illinois: A new pro-life billboard will be unveiled on March 29 on Chicago’s South side in a heavily African
Symbolism is far, far more important to the childish, silly left in America than truth. Why do I say that?
Remember all the talk about the Stimulus being about shovel ready jobs? Remember how this legislation was just so danged