Thread: What is wrong with this headline? U.S., China ratify Paris climate agreement

.
SEE: U.S., China ratify Paris climate agreement

Sat Sep 3, 2016

”The United States has joined China to formally ratify the Paris agreement to curb climate-warming emissions, the world's two biggest economies said on Saturday, which could help put the pact into force before the end of the year.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping submitted their plan to join the agreement to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who is in China to witness the announcement.”


Note the words "formally ratify". What is wrong with the headline and story is, it is a big fat LIE, panhandled by our globalist loving lying press. The fact is, our Constitution commands that our 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”. Obama is once again attempting to issue an executive order to ratify the Paris deal, which, under the terms of our Constitution requires consent of the United States Senate before it is "formally" ratified. Let us look at the facts.

The limited power granted to the President in our Constitution regarding deals [treaties] with foreign governments is stated as follows:

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…”


So, what is meant by the word “treaty” as the word was used and understood by our founders, and requires a two thirds approval vote by our Senate to have the force of law?


In Federalist No. 64 Jay defines a treaty as a “bargain” . He writes:

”These gentlemen would do well to reflect that a treaty is only another name for a bargain, and that it would be impossible to find a nation who would make any bargain with us, which should be binding on them ABSOLUTELY, but on us only so long and so far as we may think proper to be bound by it.”


And in Federalist No. 75 Hamilton tells us with reference to a treaty, “Its objects are CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law…” So, we begin to learn that the word treaty as found in our Constitution is synonymous with a contract or bargain.

In addition to Hamilton’s use of the word “CONTRACTS” to describe a “treaty”, he goes on to explain why the president was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote. Hamilton points out the president, if he had such power:

“might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

So, as it turns out, our founders intentionally commanded by our Constitution, that any deals cooked up by the president with a foreign power would not have “the force of law” unless approved by a two thirds vote in the Senate.

It is also important to note how much our founders feared an omnipotent president, and this is established when they refused giving the President Line-item veto power! Benjamin Franklin, on June 4th of the Constitutional Convention reminds the delegates how they suffered under that power and why it should not be given to the president. Franklin says:

'”The negative of the governor was constantly made use of to extort money. No good law whatever could be passed without a private bargain with him. An increase of salary or some donation, was always made a condition; till at last, it became the regular practice to have orders in his favor on the treasury presented along with the bills to be signed, so that he might actually receive the former before he should sign the latter. When the Indians were scalping the Western people, and notice of it arrived, the concurrence of the governor in the means of self-defense could not be got, until it was agreed that the people were to fight for the security of his property, whilst he was to have no share of the burdens of taxation.''

After reviewing the above documentation it becomes crystal clear that the U.S. and China have not "formally" ratified the Paris climate agreement which the headline asserts.

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

In another forum where I post, someone [jaded57] wrote: "Obama has had complete disdain for the Constitution for most of his adult life. I bet he was salivating to get on board with this; now China will continue to belch as much pollution as they like, and we regress to living in igloos with tallow-fat candles - if we're allowed to use animal products."


That comment summarized Obama's entire presidency!


JWK

80% of green energy money taxed away from hard working American Citizens WENT TO the Hillary Clinton / Obama Administration’s donors!

If China were to abide by the climate agreement, it would have to shut down at least two-thirds of its coal fired power plants.

The bottom line is, this "agreement" is another "green energy" money laundering operation designed to fatten the fortunes of those who hold political power in our federal government.

JWK

80% of green energy money taxed away from hard working American Citizens WENT TO the Hillary Clinton / Obama Administration’s donors!

The bottom line is that the Chinese economy has been gradually boosted by people buying their products. I try to avoid it now wherever possible, but it is hard to, especially on a budget. With economic growth now has come military growth, natch. What we have seen is that they play by their own rules. Trump would like to put the economic squeeze on them, from what he says. Regan put the squeeze on the Soviets, and the results were both good and bad. Would an economic squeeze on China pan out? It is clear that they are bent on being world dominant.