- How is it that one President can bind the country but another cannot unbind the country?
- It is hornbook law that one legislature cannot bind another nor limit another without a constitutionally ordained process.
- The same is true of presidential powers — presidents cannot bind Congress outside of his constitutional purview nor another president. Congress is ultimately supreme (subject to the people) as to creation of law (subject to the Constitution and perhaps a super-majority requirement). Anything it disagrees with it can refuse to pay for.
- The chilling reason why Trump could not simply ignore the Paris accord and had to formally withdraw . . .
U.S. Paid $1 Billion To Paris Agreement Green Fund – All Other Nations Combined $0…
In reality, there is nothing in the column (linked above) that is ‘new’ or completely ‘unknown’. It is, however, an excellent connecting of the dots, and is spectacularly depressing. How Donald Trump and the still sane segment of the American electorate can ultimately prevail against the incredible amount of money and political power that is behind the “One World Order” (OWO) is almost impossible to imagine.
One chart in this piece really says it all in terms of the huge role that the “Climate Hoax” plays in the plans of the OWO proponents. This is the simple fact that chart presents:
And the US was committed by Obama to pay a whole lot more. So why wouldn’t all those nations sign on to the Paris Agreement. It was a once-in-a-lifetime chance to extort $trillions from American taxpayers. And why wouldn’t all the billionaire globalists, Zuckerberg, Steyer, Soros, Bllomberg, Tim Cook, US Chamber, et al, go “bat s–t” crazy over Trump pulling out of this armed holdup? They stood to make many billions more!!!
ONE GUY IN THIS DRAMA WHO IS ALMOST CERTAIN TO HAVE ONE OF THE SHORTEST EMPLOYMENT TENURES IN HISTORY IS… NO, NOT TRUMP… BUT ANTONIO GUTERRES, THE NEW U N SECRETARY GENERAL, WHO CAME INTO OFFICE JAN. 1.
WATCH FOR THE BIG PUSH TO GET BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IN THAT JOB ASAP!
A couple more thoughts on the “Great Paris Stickup”.
First of all, what’s the deal with this “non-binding”, “voluntary” agreement our former president, the would be “Maximum Leader of the United States, and Eventually the World”, signed in 2015 in Paris?!
If it’s so “voluntary” (maybe for Obama) and “non-binding”, then what’s the big deal about getting out of it? And, how is it, the UN and the “globalist” schemers are now telling us that “you can’t just get out of this “Sacred Pact”. You agreed to hand over much of the “wealth” of your American taxpayers to the ‘needy’ of the rest of the world (“Needy”, like Germany, China, etc)!”. (After all, the US already chipped in some “seed money”…a billion bucks, so no other nation would have to contribute anything to get this planet-saving project off the ground.)
How soon before Pope Francis weighs in with his wisdom?
Should the Clinton Foundation take the lead on seeing that America’s wealth gets properly redistributed? Or maybe we should have the leaders of NGO’s and charitable foundations who “saved” Haiti handle it. Talk about properly redistributing wealth…they’re apparently experts!
Clarice Feldman at American Thinker has an in depth analysis on the implications of the Paris accord, and the one world order mindset. Drawing Back the Curtain on the World’s Political Classes. The entire article is commended to you but the Andrew McCarthy analysis she highlights regarding Obama’s circumvention of the Constitution and attempt to make his policies binding is chilling, necessitating the drill Trump undertook to formally withdraw from the agreement. Excerpt:
Here’s the “basis for why the U S can’t just “voluntarily” choose to not participate in its “non-binding” self-destruction:
If the agreement was purely voluntary and did not bind us as treaty would have, why the need to publicly withdraw from It? Well, Andy McCarthy explains the trick Obama tried to pull off:
…in 1970, President Richard M. Nixon signed a monstrosity known as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Think of it as “the treaty on treaties” — even though you probably thought we already had an American law of treaties.
Under Article 18 of the treaty on treaties, once a nation signs a treaty — or merely does something that could be interpreted as “express[ing] its consent to be bound by the treaty” — that nation is “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.”
In other words, the Constitution notwithstanding, once a presidential administration signs or otherwise signals assent to the terms of an international agreement, the United States must consider itself bound – even though the Senate has not approved it, even though it has not been ratified.
If a subsequent president wants to get the United States out from under this counter-constitutional strait-jacket, it is not enough merely to refrain from submitting the treaty to the Senate. The later president must take an affirmative action that withdraws the prior president’s assent. That is why Trump cannot not just ignore the Paris agreement; he needs to openly and notoriously pull out of it. [snip]
How does that square with the Constitution? Wrong question. The right one, apparently, is: Who needs the Constitution when you have the State Department? That bastion of transnational progressives advises that, despite the lack of ratification under our Constitution, “many” of the treaty on treaties’ provisions are binding as — what else? — “customary international law.”
President Trump is taking a significant step in removing the United States from the Paris agreement. But the step should not be significant, or politically fraught, at all. President Obama’s eleventh-hour consent to the agreement’s terms should have been nothing more consequential than symbolic pom-pom waving at his fellow climate alarmists. It should have had no legal ramifications.
DLH
The treaty on treaties referenced in the article should be abrogated promptly. Veritaspac.com
