Climate Change

Obama and Xi 'Ratify' Paris Climate Change Agreement

But remember, the Paris Agreement is NOT a treaty!

|

ObamaXiHangzhouPang Xinglei XinhuaNewsAgency/Newscom
Pang Xinglei Xinhua News Agency/Newscom

President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping announced at the G-20 Summit in Hangzhou today that both countries will join the Paris Climate Change Agreement. The White House must be annoyed that lots of headlines are declaring that President Obama is "ratifying" the the agreement. The Paris Agreement will come into effect 30 days after 55 countries emitting at least 55 percent of the world's greenhouse gases commit to it. The U.S. and China emit about 40 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. In March, 2015, President Obama submitted the U.S.'s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution pledge to cut by 2025 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28 percent below their levels in 2005. At the Hangzhou conference, President Obama reaffirmed those cuts and President Xi restated that China would begin cutting its emissions around 2030 or so. But what about that pesky "ratification" issue?

The Constitution provides that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." In order for a treaty to be ratified two-thirds of the Senate must vote in favor of a resolution of ratification. If the resolution passes, then ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are formally exchanged between the United States and the relevant foreign governments.

The Paris Agreement was specifically crafted during the United Nations negotiations to try to get around this provision of the Constitution. As I reported in my article, "Obama's Possible Paris Climate Agreement End Run Around the Senate," back in 2014 from the United Nations Lima climate change conference:

A 2010 Congressional Research Service (CRS) legal analysis of climate agreements … notes that a 1992 Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report dealing with the ratification of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) flatly stated that a "decision by the Conference of the Parties to adopt targets and timetables would have to be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the United States could deposit its instruments of ratification for such an agreement." The 1992 Senate report also explicitly added that any presidential attempt "to reinterpret the Convention to apply legally binding targets and timetables for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to the United States" would also require the Senate's prior advice and consent.

The State Department's own Foreign Affairs Manual notes that presidents may conclude executive agreements in three cases, e.g., pursuant to a treaty already authorized by the Senate; on the basis of existing legislation; and pursuant to his authority as Chief Executive when such an agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress. Consequently, President Obama might assert that he has the authority to bind the U.S. to take on international obligations under the Paris climate agreement because it is pursuant to the already authorized UNFCCC and is consistent with existing federal environmental legislation.

On the other, the Manual offers guidance for deciding when a treaty or when an executive agreement is appropriate. Relevant considerations include (1) the extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole, (2) whether the agreement is intended to affect State laws, and (3) the preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement. Clearly any international agreement that purports to impose legal limits on the emissions of greenhouse gases would involve risks to the nation as a whole and affect state laws. And, as noted earlier, the Senate has plainly stated that setting any greenhouse gas reduction targets and timetables under the UNFCCC would require its advice and consent.

As I predicted, President Obama is asserting that he is concluding an executive agreement and so he can commit the U.S. to joining the Paris Agreement because it is merely an extension of our obligations under the already ratified UNFCCC.

Advertisement

NEXT: Eating Away at State Roadkill Bans

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Cornell College Republicans Endorse Gary Johnson as a “True Conservative”

    “Mr. Trump should not be the face of American conservatism,” the club’s statement reads, proceeding to call Johnson a “true conservative.”…

    “Joined by Bill Weld ? the Libertarian ticket offers experienced, conservative solutions based on the ideas of free market and limited government,”…

    Praising their club’s diversity and differences of opinion, Cornell Republicans expressed a desire to stand “on the right side of history” this election cycle.

    “No one wants to vote for the lesser of two evils,” the statement says.

    1. To be fair, Trump is no conservative, but a populist-nationalist (whatever that is), and so no one should think he would ever be the face of conservatism. And on this score, neither should Johnson-Weld be considered the face of conservatism.

      1. but a populist-nationalist (whatever that is)

        We used to call them “Jacksonian Democrats.”

        1. Or to put it another way, we used to call them Democrats.

          The difference is that Trump is more socially liberal than your standard-issue Jackson Democrat.

          1. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do…

    2. The Cornell College Republicans have more sense than SIV.

    3. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do… http://www.14earnpath.com

    4. Earning money online was never been so easy as it has become for me now. I work over the internet and earn about 90 dollar an hour. Get more time with your family by doing this simple jobs that only require for you to have a computer and web access at your home. A little effort and handsome earning dream is just a click away. Try this… go web and click to tech tab for more info work… http://www.14earnpath.com

    5. If by “true conservatives” you mean “what Republicans were a long time ago” or “pining for what the country used to be like”, that’s perhaps true. But that’s not the way people use the term today.

      But people who actually identify as “conservative” are social and Christian conservative: theocratic nanny-staters, different from their progressive counterparts only in the details of how they want to mess with peoples’ lives.

    6. I am making $92/hour working from home. I never thought that it was legitimate but my best friend is earning $14 thousand a month by working online, that was really surprising for me, she recommended me to try it. just try it out on the following website…go to this website and click to Tech tab for more work details… http://goo.gl/RSVRhj

  2. For a constitutional scholar, albeit a rather lackluster one, he sure doesn’t seem to give a shit about the constitution. I’m certain the brain damaged pussies in the Republican congress will manage to field a laughably inadequate counter strategy.

    1. I am awaiting their inevitable surrender.

    2. They’re already saying that if one President can sign it, another can unsign it so they’ve done all they can do. You want them to promise to repeal it and do something that looks like they’re attempting to repeal it? That’s like two things they’d have to do. They’re only one party, how much can you expect one party to do?

    3. The Democrats could have used their short majority after Obama took office to seal up some international treaties relating to carbon emissions. They chose ObamaCare to occupy their time and energies.

      Obama is just trying to do this as he is leaving office since he doesn’t have to endure the wrath of voters anymore.

      Come on Senate, use that constitution and say, nope Obama, to your little treaty with Communist China.

  3. “The U.S. and China emit about 40 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases.”

    Um, maybe that’s because they produce 40% of the world’s stuff?

    1. I remember years back seeing some whine about how the US uses a disproportionate share of “the world’s” energy (as if we’re running a long dropcord into poor countries and stealing their electricity) and it was easily shown that the US produces an even more disproportionate share of the world’s output, indicating that the US is more energy efficient than the rest of the world and was actually using less energy than might be expected.

      1. Energy is fairly allocated on a per capita basis. The united states is using far beyond its fair share. This is the reason subsistence herders in north Africa use animal dung to fuel their cooking fires. When you use air conditioning to cool your home or workplace during the sweltering heat of summer, you are stealing from the children of rural India who don’t have air conditioning.

        This is called reality. You can have your own opinion, but you aren’t entitled to your own facts!

        1. Sufficiently advanced sarcasm is indistinguishable from stupidity.

        2. This is the reason subsistence herders in north Africa use animal dung to fuel their cooking fires.

          But polishing the floors with cow shit? That’s just for show.

      2. Well, a fairly simple measure is a nation’s energy intensity. The US is fairly close to world average.

  4. Just a thought here. It seems as though the wheels are finally coming off the liberal media wagon. All of the shit coming out of HuffPo and Vox is so fucking stupid that even my super liberal friends can’t even pretend anymore.

    The HUGE news yesterday: Amy Schumer said something to a heckler. Girl power standing up against sexism in the United States!!!!! Never mind that it was in Sweden. Never mind that it’s not very clever for a comedian to threaten to have somebody kicked out; the real way is to mock and embarrass them until they shut up.

    For some reason, the media machine decided that this was INTERNATIONAL NEWS, and a variation of this article showed up in every single media outlet in the country.

    The awesome part? Everyone is making fun of it.

    1. Don’t worry, they’re just coming up for air before going for a deeper-dive.

    2. I won’t count the Liberal Establishment Media down until I see concrete evidence that the body is decaying. If any level of common sense existed on the Left, the New York Times would have been a laughingstock decades ago.

      1. If there’s an upside to Trump, it’s that he’s accelerating the process. CNN is almost done.

      2. I won’t count the Liberal Establishment Media down until I see concrete evidence that the body is decaying.

        Uh, zombie protocol is quite clear that you have to shoot them in the head.

        1. Double-tap, just to be sure.

        2. Uh, zombie protocol is quite clear that you have to shoot them in the head.

          Remember:

          Aim for the mouth – you *MUST* destroy the brain stem in order to put the “living” dead out of action. Frontal lobe shots ain’t gonna cut it.

          Damn, I miss Mensan; he would have chimed in with that. Wonder what happened to him.

          1. If you use enough gun, then it doesn’t matter where in the face you hit them…

      3. Just because the body is decaying doesn’t make the MSM harmless…just ask George Romero.

    3. I defy anyone to find a stupider article that appears anywhere in the world, than this one today in the NYTimes.

      Hurricane Season Is Heating Up. So Is the Planet. Coincidence?

      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09…..v=top-news

      1. Hey, they mention the 10 year hurricane drought in the 6th paragraph!

        1. Today’s NYT also has an article on global warming flooding the East coast. They mention that Norfolk and other areas are sinking, but for some reason fail to say how much of the flooding is due to sinking land, and how much to rising oceans. Wonder why?

      2. The lack of hurricanes doesn’t mean their models are wrong, because weather is not climate. But the minute there’s a severe weather event, weather is climate.

        1. The interesting thing is that actual hurricane experts deny any increase in either insensitivity or frequency of storms from historical norms.

          1. Sorry:

            “insensitivity” should read “intensity”

        2. “The lack of hurricanes doesn’t mean their models are wrong”

          Do you actually know what the models predict? The last IPCC report predicted slightly fewer hurricanes, but that the largest hurricanes would get stronger by an average of half a hurricane category by 2050.

          “But the minute there’s a severe weather event, weather is climate.”

          Seems weird to say this in response to a really excellent NYT piece on hurricanes where no such claims are made.

      3. Yea, it’s like Florida never got hit by a hurricane before.

        This storm wasn’t even that big a deal, it was Cat 1 for, what, about eight hours or so?

        1. Florida Man yawns, cracks open another beer and hits a python with a rake.

    4. Jackson Murphy, who runs the review site Lights Camera Jackson, met Schumer at the Critics’ Choice awards and tweeted a picture of the pair together with the caption: “Spent the night with @amyschumer. Certainly not the first guy to write that.”

      The tweet was deleted but Schumer responded: “I get it. Cause I’m a whore? Glad I took a photo with you. Hi to your dad.”

      …Yes, that’s the character you play.

      And her ‘dealing’ with the heckler is embarrassing. She couldn’t even come up with one good ret–

      Oh, right. Probably shouldn’t actually comment on the story we’re denouncing as fluff. Dumping the Clinton-FBI notes on a Friday before a holiday weekend is so transparently bad, I’d hope some super liberals would stop pretending.

      1. You can’t make jokes that “outrage” people then apologize and be seen as a bigger person because of it unless you’re *already famous*. Don’t they explain the rules to anyone?

      2. I have a buddy who does comedy at the Laugh Factory every saturday. He sucks. But the one thing he can do is deal with hecklers. Mothers Against Drunk Driving had a charity event there, and he asked the president why bars have parking lots.

      3. “Well, sir, that depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress.”

        “Indeed, I am drunk, but you are ugly, and I shall be sober tomorrow.”

        “There is a conspiracy of silence against you and I suggest you join it.”

        By my favorite comeback:

        “Hey pal, up yours!”

      4. I was going to post that pull quote in longer form.

        Schumer has a history of confronting sexist or derogatory remarks. In January, she chastised a 17-year-old film critic after he aimed a sexist tweet at her.

        Jackson Murphy, who runs the review site Lights Camera Jackson, met Schumer at the Critics’ Choice awards and tweeted a picture of the pair together with the caption: “Spent the night with @amyschumer. Certainly not the first guy to write that.”

        The tweet was deleted but Schumer responded: “I get it. Cause I’m a whore? Glad I took a photo with you. Hi to your dad.”

        The kid’s joke was “aiming a sexist tweet at her”.

        Ok…. I’m gonna say, not sexist. Implying that a woman who makes her career telling humorous stories about herself, including lots of stuff about having sex with men, …. you know, has sex with men. Not sexist.

        It is clearly a joke exactly crafted to her style of humor.

        And the manufactured outrage is particularly appalling considering this interview she did with Lena Dunham.

        1. I’m really surprised that the author of that article would use this incident to bolster an argument that Shumer is the target of rampant misogyny.

          She specializes in bawdy humor. That’s gonna attract people who are into bawdy things. It isn’t like Michelle Obama was giving a speech about broccoli when someone yelled “show me your tits”.

          1. Yuk.

            Unnecessary.

        2. You apparently don’t understand how humor works. Schumer’s jokes about her sex life are 1) part of a performance persona and 2) self-deprecating. You can argue (pointlessly) over whether the kid’s tweet was sexist or not, but it was absolutely out of bounds not “crafted to her style of humor.”

          If I make a joke at work about putting on a few pounds, that does not mean it’s okay for my co-workers to call me a fat-ass.

  5. Look,,he has a pen and a phone,and,Hillary has many phones. If she can find them. Oh and running the U.S ,let alone the world,on ‘green energy’ is a pipe dream. Gas and coal back ups bitches.

    1. And of course nuclear. But try running all cars,ships ,heavy trucks and aircraft with no oil or gas. Then there’s the feeder stock for chemicals and such that both are need for.

  6. Drudge is focusing on a different angle in regards to this meeting.

    1. Almost OSU game time here. T

      1. Tortilla soup with cheddar cheese,chips,Mexican rice and beer. I love this time of year. G’day over there.

          1. OK, they’ve gotten lucky a few times.

    1. Green means go? BAFFLING!

      1. I found this amusing:

        Mr Smith, of Preston, Lancashire, said: “When the light went green I saw the two female symbols and I thought, ‘Oh right, so my missus can cross with my little girl but what do me and the boy do?’

        Because sex-segregated pedestrian crossing is something that happens.

        1. The Gender Privilege struggle in urban perambulation is real

    2. We are losing our fucking minds.

  7. This agreement is like a suicide pact where one of the parties tell the other “after you.”

    Another reason why I know the Marxians aren’t serious about the environment. They just want socialism by shaming everyone for our immoral consumption so that the privations and deqth brought by socialism can be sold as a feature, rather than being a bug, once the material abundance promised by them for 150 years never came to be.

    1. An ‘OldMexican’ stand off then?


    2. This agreement is like a suicide pact where one of the parties tell the other “after you.”

      Its worse than that.

      Because not only does no one have a clue what China’s actual emissions are, there’s not even any clear process for trying to find out. They literally just ‘make shit up’, then promise to make up different numbers in a few years.

      The last time Beijing produced an official figure was in 2005, when it said its emissions stood at “approximately” 7.47 billion tonnes. And while it has promised that emissions will peak by 2030 at the latest, experts say the statistical uncertainty is so great that forecasts on what that peak means can vary from 11 to 20 billion tonnes a year.

      That margin is greater than the entire annual carbon footprint of Europe.

      The United States debates imposing trillions of dollars in costs to our real economy in order to achieve ‘reductions’ which don’t even amount to a fly on the mountain of developing-world emissions.

      And the people who talk about climate change policy pretend to be the ‘serious ones’

    3. If you don’t recognize that third world countries have as much right to develop with cheap fossil fuels as first world countries, then you will be very confused by climate negotiations. You may deny that this right should exist. I don’t think you can do so logically, but at least it makes a biased and entitled sort of sense.

      But arguing that this reality is some kind of evidence for your “socialism” conspiracy theories is extremely lazy thinking, if it constitutes thinking at all.

  8. It’s an executive agreement, not a treaty, and therefore doesn’t need Congressional approval. It was carefully written to be as such. In addition he is utilizing existing federal statutes (Clean Air Act) and treaties (Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was enacted in 1992 and signed by Bush) as the basis for the agreement, which is how such agreements are supported.

    “More than 90% of binding international agreements governed by international law are concluded by the United States without Senate advice and consent, known as “executive agreements.”

    Really. Get over it.

      1. You do know that the guy who wrote that legal thumbsucker is hardly an unbiased neutral observer, right? If you want to know whether or not Hillary broke the law wrt her private server, that eminent legal scholar Bill Clinton might not be the best source for an authoritative answer. He’s giving you the best possible arguments in favor of one side, not a balanced analysis.

        1. Bailey’s not a neutral observer either. Me neither. Nor you.

          1. Yeah, but you were the one who chose your champion and arguments.

            1. Nah. Just responded to Bailey with a differing opinion, which is all we are doing here. Stop crying! You did as well!

              1. I felt pity for the guy with the blown off leg at Bagram, Afghanistan. I felt terrible for the family of the formerly middle class, that I served in the line at the food bank….you, I feel no pity for. Your idiocy and stunted thought process are entirely voluntary and self-inflicted. I prescribe a bolus does of whisky and some self-introspection.

                That or you can just fuck off, slaver.

                *pours wine libation for JsubD*

    1. “It’s an executive agreement, not a treaty, and therefore doesn’t need Congressional approval. It was carefully written to be as such.”

      As such, it is not binding on the US.
      Obo can agree to do whatever HE want’s to do; he cannot agree for me.

    2. Kind of like the Korean War wasn’t a war because it was a police action.

      And the Viet Nam War, the bombing of Laos and Cambodia, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, etc., etc. were not wars.

      The President doesn’t need no steeenkin’ Congress. He has a pen and a phone, and he can do what he pleases.

      Hell, he doesn’t even need a “Supreme” Court because he can interpret the Constitution as he pleases.

      1. He needs Congress if it’s a treaty. This isn’t.

        1. So it has no effect.

        2. And so it isn’t binding.

          1. Then don’t worry. You’re good!

            1. So, now that we agree you’re wrong, why are you crowing like an idiot?

              1. No, I’m right. Just crowing again!

                1. How could I be good, when I said it wasn’t binding and you disagreed, and insist your roght.

                  You admitted you were wrong when you said I was good, are you recanting?

                  Take a moment, put your dick back in your pants, and get your responses together so you’re coherent.

                  1. Where did I ever say it was binding. Waiting…..

                    1. “Where did I ever say it was binding. Waiting…..”

                      OK, then, I suppose that means that if a subsequent President ignores this international agreement you will say that it doesn’t matter because the agreement isn’t binding?

                    2. Read what I said about Trump. Keep trying!

                    3. You said “nothing for you to worry about.”

                      Where did I say I was worried? You admit it’s not binding. It’s simply Presidential posturing for the benefit of low-info voters.

                      Agreed?

                2. Is there some pill you can take to double your intelligence and make you a wit?

                  Or will you keep relying on an appeal to the views of the modern-day leadership of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and expect H&R commenters to be impressed?

              2. Let me put it this way…get Trump elected and poof… Nothing for you to worry about!

                1. Not what I asked you.

                  1. I answered your question. Now, where did I say it was binding?

                    1. Yes, in the way a bum shitting himself is technically an answer.

                      Where did I say you said it was binding?

                    2. Joe is a bit slow…..like his hero Slow Joe Biden.

                      I suggest speaking slower, and using smalller words.

        3. Yes – this is just some minor technical revisions and addendums to an existing treaty, not a Big Fucking Deal at all. So why are all the usual suspects falling all over themselves to praise Obama’s big bold leap forward exactly as if it is a Big Fucking Deal? Either it’s a trifling matter that needs no Senate approval and therefore warrants no press coverage or it’s a big deal that warrants both press attention and Senate approval. You can’t have it both ways.

          1. I’m having it one way. It’s an executive agreement, not a treaty.

            1. So an executive agreement has no more significance than a press release?

              I suppose that means you won’t be particularly indignant if Obama or a later President ignores it.

              1. Like I said, you’re good!

                1. And as you were told, if you admit we’re good, this is an admission you’re wrong.

                  1. So apparently he admits that if Obama or a later President ignores this “agreement” he won’t be indignant.

        4. Which means it’s not binding. Next topic.

    3. Your link cites a circular issued by the Department of State in 1955 which has been endorsed by…wait for it…the modern-day leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties!

      That should certainly convince supporters of the modern-day leadership of the Republican and Democratic parties that executive agreements are totally constitutional!

      Unfortunately, you haven’t really done a survey of your audience at H&R, and I’m not sure that they uniformly accept your premise that the modern-day Demopublican leadership are constitutional experts whose opinions are worth a crap.

      1. Your link doesn’t even cite George Sutherland, the closest you have to a credible actual authority on your side.

        I suppose you wouldn’t want to open that can of worms considering Sutherland’s constitutional views on the New Deal.

      2. Hey, the U.S. Constitution dates back to 1700s, and is endorsed by both Dems and Reps.

        1. Good thing you’re not begging the question.

          1. What’s the question?

            1. By what authority does Obama purport to ratify this “international agreement” without Senate approval?

              1. Because he has the authority to enter into executive agreements (read my posting link), as such doesn’t need Senate approval, and it’s a process done all the time, and is not unconstitutional.

                1. “(read my posting link)”

                  Whose authority I just questioned.

                  “done all the time”

                  So is burglary.

              2. Actually, we know by what authority he *purports* to act.

                So I should ask: Why is Obama’s “ratification” of the agreement constitutional?

                1. Because executive agreements are constitutional.

                  1. Why are executive agreements constitutional?

                    1. Ask SCOTUS.

                    2. “Ask SCOTUS.”

                      OK, let me consult them…

                      Hey, it turns out that not only are executive agreements constitutional, it’s also constitutional for the feds to regulate marijuana in the name of interstate commerce, and for the states to take someone’s house and give it to a private corporation.

                      And corporations have free speech rights, and Obama should simply shut up about it!

                  2. In a limited capacity.

                    This exceeds that capacity.

                    1. No. It fits it exactly.

                    2. The Constitution disagrees.

            2. “Good thing you aren’t begging the question.”

              “What’s the question?”

              And there you have it. Ignorance on display. Or comedy. Is it comedy or ignorance? Either way it made me laugh.

              1. Yes. Yes it is.

          2. Anyway, if the Dems and Reps endorsed the Constitution, why won’t they obey the Treaty Clause?

            1. They do. And Obama has as well.

              1. So why is it constitutional for Obama to ratify this thing without Senate approval?

                1. Because it’s an executive agreement and not a treaty

                  Third base!!!

                  1. And since executive agreements are limited in their scope, and this, exceeds the legal limits of said agreements, it isn’t binding.

                    Glad you agree, finally.

                  2. Speaking of third base, say hit to your mom for me.

                    1. Oops I mean *hi*

                      Say “hit” to your dealer and get some more of whatever stuff makes you such an Internet genius

                  3. Jackand Ace|9.3.16 @ 1:16PM|#
                    “Because it’s an executive agreement and not a treaty
                    Third base!!!”

                    Jack, you make Fred Astair look like he has two left feet.

                  4. You progs just are willing to make anything up aren’t you?

                    It’s a treaty. The scotus is wrong about making exceptions to the treaty clause among many things they are wrong about.

        2. Hey, jack. Still waiting for the cite on all the libertarians supporting eminent domain.
          Did you forget THAT lie, Jack? Along with all the other ones?

        3. Well, parts of it are.

    4. And if Trump wins this election he has promised to toss them all in the trash.

      You and the other pinkos gnashing their teeth and tearing their hair will be delicious if that happens.

    5. It’s an executive agreement, not a treaty, and therefore doesn’t need Congressional approval. has no legal significance whatsoever and is just a PR charade to impress morons

      FTFY

      1. Seems to be working.

    6. Re: Jackass Ass,

      “More than 90% of binding international agreements governed by international law are concluded by the United States without Senate advice

      The operating word is “governed by International Law.” Agreements on emissions are not governed by International Law but by treaty and, thus, those agreements NOT approved by the Senate are NON BINDING. The next president can perfectly toss out such an agreement just like governments do as a matter of routine. Your naive confidence in the moral principles of politicians is very touching, very sweet.

    7. Fuck off, slaver. Oh, and fuck you. Now, go eat that bag of dicks you so very much crave.

      1. @jackass, by the way

      2. Lawnmowers in flight…

    8. Thanks for admitting it was a goddamn work around because he didn’t want to do shit the proper way. Just like Obamacare.

      Here’s an idea, slaver, turn off your computer, donate your car and go live in a motherfucjing cave with no fire.

    9. Is it an agreement between the USA and a foreign nation? Then it’s a treaty for constitution purposes.

      Do progs just ignore constitutional law at Ivy League schools or are they given passing grades even if they never learn about the constitution?

  9. “Treaties” is a word written in a crumbling old 18th Century document. Nations no longer commit to “treaties”: they have executive agreements. Kind of like they no longer engage in “war”: instead they conduct kinetic military operations.

  10. OT: [ice] hockey in Kenya (auto-start video):

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36909219

    1. That’s great. Did you check out the corners in their rink? Real corners!

    2. Whatever happened to the Jamaican Bobsled Team after they made their movie?

      And please try to come up with a reply which doesn’t involve the terms “dreadlocks,” “rasta” or “ganja.”

      1. According to Wikipedia, Devon Harris returned to his military career and is now a motivational speaker. Chris Stokes still works with the team but is also a VP with a Building Society.

        The team has since made it to 5 Winter Olympics in various types of bobsleigh. The 2-man team finished 28 out of 29 in 2014.

        #morethanyoueverwantedtoknow

        1. *salutes RN, slams glass of shiraz*

  11. Think Xi and Vlad ever go off to the side of these conferences and talk about how great it is being able to run circles around the President of the United States?

    “So he gets all tough on Syria for the chemical weapons right, but doesn’t have the political support to actually do anything! So I step in, declare that we’ll ensure that they aren’t used, wait til it gets out of the news cycle and these morons *waves at reporters* are more obsessed with something else, and then use them anyway!”

    “That’s nothing, I got him to agree to bad environmentalist policy that we’ll never follow! Phew, if he actually believes that I’ve got an island in the South China Sea to sell him! And then when he’s hanging around Alaska one of our ships ‘accidentally’ slips into U.S. waters around the state just to fuck with him! Ha!”

    1. What’s Russian for “Me Chinee, me play joke…….”?

      1. “I switched the glasses, ha ha!”

        “I put pee-pee in *both* glasses, but only *I* took the antidote!”

        1. …Never get involved in a land war in Asia… Even less well known it this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line…[dead].

          1. Princess bride for those unaware.

      2. What’s Russian for “Me Chinee, me play joke…….”?

        Ja kitaec/kitajanka, mogu obmonvyvat’…suka!*

        *Fuck you Reason for disallowing that in Cyrillic.

    2. Yeah, I imagine them shooting looks to each other every time some derp falls out of Obumbles mouth. They probably have challenged each other to see who can manipulate Obumbles to do the dumbest thing. If Obumbles were to ever fall asleep at the conference table Putin will probably put shaving cream in his hand while Xi tickles his nose.

      1. Putin would put Obumbles’ feet in a pot of warm water and watch the river flow, Xi would put O’s fingers in a Chinese Finger Trap at the same time.

        Or put toothpaste on his lips and swap out O’s toothpaste with Preparation H.

  12. The Senate should hold a vote on whether to approve the treaty and if the vote fails, publicize the failure and notify all foreign embassies.*

    *But OMG Logan Act!

  13. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…

    —————->> http://www.ReportMax90.Com

  14. Important revelation, or rats leaving the sinking ship? We report, you decide.

    “Media Giant Rupert Murdoch: Roger Ailes Made Trump…

    “…it seems Murdoch actually wanted Fox News to be a *news network,* while Ailes wanted it to be Trump’s campaign headquarters and a swinger’s hangout.”

    1. Once I heard Eric Bolling discussing politics with Capitalist Pig founder (and hedge fund manager, and Objectivist) Jonnathan Hoenig, during a segment on Cashing In, and, all of a sudden, Bolling declared himself a “Rothbardian libertarian”. I immediately told my wife who was watching with me ‘this guy is full of shit. I don’t believe this knucklehead ever read a single thing written by Rothbard or ever heard a single lecture.’

      Time would prove me right when the guy became a fully-fledged Trumpista with a sudden appetite to round up people and ship them to Madagascar.

      1. Considering that Rothbard endorsed Pat Buchanan in 1992, I’m not sure if those categories are quite as exclusive as you think they are.

    2. A great story marred only by the fact that everybody on Fox News was either for Jeb! or Rubio during the primaries, until the bitter end when they all decided that a brokered convention was going to elevate Kasich to the number 1 slot. The exception being Hannity. Fox News is the Weekly Standard’s TV division.

      1. Maybe they were for him before they were against him. And then for him, again.

  15. Sophia . although Nancy `s stori is impressive, on sunday I got a top of the range Peugeot 205 GTi from earning $9438 this-past/four weeks an would you believe ten-k last-munth . it’s actualy the most financially rewarding I’ve ever done . I actually started nine months/ago and pretty much straight away began to make over $78 per-hour . have a peek at this website
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

    1. I’m impressed, and I don’t even know what a “stori” *is.*

      1. It’s the plural of storus.

      2. It’s short fot Storichnaya, the Chinese vodka.

        1. Rice paddies, is there anything they can’t do?

          1. Deliver tasty soju to me in person?

            I AM WAITING, RICE PADDIES!!!!

  16. Sophia . although Nancy `s stori is impressive, on sunday I got a top of the range Peugeot 205 GTi from earning $9438 this-past/four weeks an would you believe ten-k last-munth . it’s actualy the most financially rewarding I’ve ever done . I actually started nine months/ago and pretty much straight away began to make over $78 per-hour . have a peek at this website
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

    1. I heard you the first time, squirrel boy.

      1. 9k is a lot to pay for a 20 yo French supermini.

  17. Ah, Jackand, I was reading more of that article you cited.

    “President Obama, if anything, may have undershot in the Paris Agreement by failing fully to exercise his Executive authority….

    “An over-reliance on a non-binding approach?and its costs?are most obvious in the all-important emissions reduction (mitigation) obligations known as “nationally determined contributions (NDCs)” identified by each participating state including the United States….

    “It need not have been this way, at least not based on domestic legal constraints in the United States….

    “,,,the U.S.’s crucial emissions reduction undertaking is still only a non-binding aspiration not governed by international law.”

    See, Obama *could* have entered into binding obligations, but he chose nonbinding obligations instead.

    But if he’d assumed binding obligations on behalf of the U.S., that would have been totally constitutional!

    Do you understand now, or does Jack have to start oozing sarcasm until you assimilate the meaning?

    1. I can see the headline in the New York Times if President Trump or President Hillary misses these nonbinding goals:

      U.S. MISSES NONBINDING GOALS UNDER NONBINDING, IRRELEVANT DOCUMENT
      NO BIG DEAL, SAY LEGAL EXPERTS

  18. The world doesn’t stop turning because the Senate decides to become dysfunctional.

    I’ve been pretty consistent on this point: if Republicans insist on obstructing anything and everything because they didn’t get their lollipop in the last election, the president will find ways around normal constitutional order. It’s not a good thing, but it’s inevitable.

    1. Wait, so any opposition to the anointed persons is now “dysfunctional”, “didn’t get their lollipop” etc is now treason?

      What ever happened to “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”? Or does that only apply to dissent against your opponents?

      1. These derpas think an idle government is treasonous.

        Trump winning will be the shocking wake up to many of these derp-speaking socialists that their strategies are mostly being ignored and have failed yet again.

    2. Also, what the fuck is “they didn’t get their lollipop in the last election” bullshit?

      Isn’t the fact that the voters returned majorities in both the House and the the Senate in “the last election”, evidence that, in fact, the Republicans DID “get their lollipop in the last election”?

    3. Ah, Tony, you’re like Jackand Ace without the razor-sharp intellect.

    4. Re: Tony,

      I’ve been pretty consistent on this point: if Republicans insist on obstructing anything and everything because they didn’t get their lollipop in the last election, the president will find ways around normal constitutional order

      Look how enamoured are you of tyrannical strongmen!

      Down, boy! Down!

      1. Tony wants a strong man to dominate him.

    5. The Senate is being exactly functional. The only way to make it any more functional is to revert to senatorial election by state legislatures. This is going precisely as the founders intended.

      1. Exactly!

        1. Should have been:

          Exactly!

          Tony just has his sexual fantasies confused with good government.

      2. I must have missed the filibuster clause.

        1. The “filibuster clause”?

          Where exactly in the COTUS does the “filibuster clause” appear?

          Fillibusters are a privilege allowed to Senators, not to the Executive Branch.

          They exist to prevent executive and majority* overreach.

          *As in “the tyranny of the majority”.

          1. AFAIK, the word “filibuster” appears exactly…oh…wait.. zero times in the COTUS.

    6. Tony circa 2007:

      I’ve been pretty consistent on this point: if Democrats insist on obstructing anything and everything because they didn’t get their lollipop in the last election, the president will find ways around normal constitutional order. It’s not a good thing, but it’s inevitable.

      Why, wait a minute, he didn’t say that all. If you didn’t know any better, you might think he was an unprincipled partisan shitstain.

    7. Tony doesn’t think the Senate never being given the opportunity to vote on a treaty is the Senate being dysfunctional.

      Tony’s just being willfully retarded.

      And that isn’t a personal attack

      It’s a statement of fact gleaned from years of observation.

      1. Tony isn’t being “willfully” retarded.

        1. Yes he is.

          His responses are calculated for effect.

          He’s an ignoramus, but he’s also trolling.

    8. I’ve been pretty consistent on this point: if Republicans insist on obstructing anything and everything because they didn’t get their lollipop in the last election, the president will find ways around normal constitutional order. It’s not a good thing, but it’s inevitable.

      Not surprisingly, Tony advocates an Enabling Act for Hitlary.

      As for me, I’ll vote to bring about obstruction and deadlock in Congress because I consider it a good thing.

  19. It really doesn’t mean anything.

    If he’s just agreeing to enforce existing law by executive agreement, then Obama’s just making a big show about doing something he could have done years ago, without any agreement. Why the big wait?

    Probably because climate change as an issue is pretty much dead in this country. Oh, everyone claims to care about it, because you’re supposed to care, even when you’re not doing anything about it. Not too many people care enough to stop driving to work or running their ACs, but, they assure you, they care. They recycle!

    Sanders wanted a carbon tax. Hillary Clinton pretends that’s not really an issue. She just promises big spending on clean air moonshots. So far, it has a great track record (you know, how climate change is almost solved and all).

    They’re accusing corporations of fraud to make up for their own political failures with carbon taxes, etc. They’re just throwing a whiny tantrum that people must not embrace good climate change policy because of horrible propaganda. The real reason just can’t be their failure to persuade people to take on higher prices for energy in order to discourage consumption.

    Prediction: nothing will happen. The show will go on, and we’ll still be waiting for the government to solve global warming, like we always have. Really, environmental regulation is the perfect reason for government. And they’ll get on that any day now. Just wait: you’ll see.

    1. “If he’s just agreeing to enforce existing law by executive agreement, then Obama’s just making a big show about doing something he could have done years ago, without any agreement. Why the big wait?”

      How ’bout cause he didn’t have the cover of the WTO, the UN, and other international organizations, and he didn’t have the support of the American people? Now that the other parties to the treaty have signed, and he’s as lame as duck can be, he no longer needs to worry about either one.

      That’s one explanation.

      Another explanation is that the American people shouldn’t complain about Obama raping us because he could have raped us at any time.

      Did your mother drop you on your head as a child?

        1. Blow it out your ass, idiot.

          I mean, seriously, you walk in here, say something that stupid, and you think people are supposed to ignore your stupidity because it’s stupid?

          I don’t know what kind of redneck planet you live on, but that isn’t the way things work around here.

          Maybe you wanted a trigger warning?

          Up yours.

          1. You realized I talked about climate change being a dead issue politically as an answer to my own question.

            And one of your own answers to my question was that maybe he didn’t have the support of he American people.

            In other words, you agree with me, and then call me an idiot.

            Calm down, Kenny Poo.

            1. There isn’t anything about me that feel bad because I called out your stupid shit.

              If you don’t want to be called out for saying stupid shit, there’s an easy way for smart people to avoid that.

              But are you capable of not saying stupid shit?

              1. A simple apology would be fine.

                1. Up yours!

                  1. *drops swords, gloves and pamphlets on dueling*

  20. I think we should stop arguing among ourselves. Ultimately, the question of whether it’s an enforceable treaty will be properly decided by the World Court–just as it says in our Constitution, “treaties = highest law of the land”.

    1. Neither Obama, nor the Senate, nor any “world court” can override the laws of nature and economics.

      The climate accord targets are not physically and economically realistic.

  21. Let’s take a walk down memory lane:

    “WASHINGTON ? 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.”

    New York Times
    August 26, 2014

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08…..reaty.html

    1. Much like Hillary taking money from foreign governments while she was the Secretary of State, this has been a story since before the last midterm elections . . .

      Losing the consent of the governed as a limiting principle for international treaties and what can become the highest law in the land, that’s what happens when we let progressive shitheads turn politics into questions about who’s a racist, whether nuns should be forced to provide birth control for their employees, whether caterers should be compelled to bake gay wedding cakes, and which bathrooms transgender students should use in North Carolina.

      If you thought whether Hillary was elected was an important question in terms of what happens when ObamaCare finally dies?

      If you thought whether Hillary was elected was an important question in terms of what happens to the Second Amendment and whom she nominated to the Supreme Court?

      Then you should add this to the list: If Hillary appoints someone who thinks giving the government the coercive power to slash CO2 emissions is more important than the separation of powers, then it doesn’t matter what the Constitution says.

  22. President Xi restated that China would begin cutting its emissions around 2030 or so.

    Hahahahahahahah! Even if Xi wasn’t a megalomaniac and a scumbag and meant this, he’s not supposed* to be in control by then.

    *Assuming this piece of shit doesn’t work the Party into giving him some kind of Prez for life or Prez for life by proxy dealie like Putin has.

    1. i>”President Xi restated that China would begin cutting its emissions around 2030 or so.”

      Occam’s razor doesn’t suggest that Obama is an idiot for doing things like this to us.

      He keeps doing the same things over and over again. He did it with ObamaCare, he’s done it with all sorts of things.

      Occam’s razor suggests that Obama hates America for being racist, capitalist, and selfish, and this is one of his ways of striking back at America for that.

      It’s just like with ObamaCare. They knew what the program would do for the cost and quality of care for the middle class. It was meant to cover the costs associated with expanding Medicaid.

      Part of ObamaCare put a prohibitive tax on hospitals buying new medical technology. Part of ObamaCare put a Cadillac health insurance tax on insurance benefits that were too generous for employees.

      Why would he do that? Why would Obama penalize companies for offering health insurance programs that were too generous?

      It’s the same reason he expanded Medicaid.

      He hates Americans for being capitalist, racist, and selfish, and he purposely tries to tie us to deals that are obviously to our detriment–because being a detriment to the selfish American middle class is a good thing by itself.

  23. So the two biggest statist liars on the planet agree to a treaty on clim-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!

    Right.

    China just wants to sell off all of the Rare Earth minerals that it has been stockpiling, and Obama wants to pay them with a printing press.

    The rest of the world has already adapted, and moved on without them.

  24. So, that you’re saying is that this is a honest-to-gawd impeachable offense. It may not be too late to send a message to future office holders that they will be bound by the Constitution and “signing statements” and “executive orders” will no longer be tolerated.

    And after that, I want my pony and ice cream cone.

  25. Other languages bandy about “ratify” to mean “aprove,” “dig” or “think is cool.” Reading the Kyoto Protocol, “China” appears nowhere as liable for one thin dime or a single kWh of sacrificial offerings on the Altar of Water Vapor and Other Gases. So the whole thing is another Moratorium on Brains or standstill agreement. Whatever became of the Bozone layer that threatened humanity with immediate extinction if freon weren’t banned for all but LNG plants? Howcum there is no change whatsoever on Ozone Hole Watch except that now refrigeration is overpriced?

    1. This is all about building up China.

  26. til I saw the draft which had said $6144 , I be certain …that…my brother woz really making money parttime from their computer. . there aunt has done this for only eleven months and resantly cleard the loans on there mini mansion and purchased a great new Lexus LS400 . read here ??????????

    ?????? ??????? http://www.businessbay4.com/

  27. Brandon . I can see what your saying… Victor `s rep0rt is good, last wednesday I bought a great Audi Quattro since I been making $5790 this past 5 weeks and just over ten-k this past munth . it’s by-far the most rewarding I have ever had . I actually started five months/ago and almost immediately brought home over $82, p/h .
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  28. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..
    ??????>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  29. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,
    ——————>>> http://www.works76.com

  30. Hey, when was NAFTA “ratified”?

  31. my classmate’s aunt makes $74 /hr on the internet . She has been fired for eight months but last month her paycheck was $12598 just working on the internet for a few hours. find out here now

    ?????? http://www.businessbay4.com/

  32. Honeymoon in Paris is a different thing, Are you searching for the perfect honeymoon destination? If you are, you will be pleased with your options
    http://viralrang.com/5-reasons…..is-france/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.