Today, same as in 1997, the Global Climate Change Treaty does not have a prayer to be ratified, even by this "filibuster proof" Senate....If you were power hungry, corrupt, owned by special interests, or just plain ignorant on policies that destroy the middle class, what would you do? How about a legislative end-run around the Constitution?
Lord Christopher Monckton, former advisor to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, dropped a bombshell speech at the Minnesota Free Market Institute in Saint Paul Minnesota, on October 14th.
In the speech, Monckton urged the American public to lobby President Obama against signing the Treaty for Global Climate Change.
Monckton does not know our president as well as we know him. Even if 10 million American protestors camped out on the White House lawn, who really believes that Obama wouldn't blink an eye about signing an agreement that met his global agenda?
Unfortunately for him, Monckton is not a scholar of the American Constitution. Monckton wrongly believes that once Obama signs the treaty it's a done deal. He does not understand that the real power of approving treaties lies with the Senate, not the President. All treaties must be ratified by two thirds of the Senators present in the chamber . If Monckton knew this, he would not be asking us to persuade Obama against signing the treaty, he would ask us to lobby our senators.
The United States Senate has a long history of rejecting treaties our presidents sign. After World War I the Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. This, after Woodrow Wilson hand-carried it to the Senate chamber, and presented the treaty to the Senate in person. Such a gesture had not been seen in American history for 130 years, going all the way back to President Washington, when he personally delivered the Jay Treaty with Great Britain to the Senate floor. (The Senate narrowly ratified the Jay treaty, effectively delaying--for 17 years-- the inevitable war with Great Britain which finally reignited in 1812.)
Again, in 1997 the Senate refused to ratify the President Clinton's agreement for global warming at the Kyoto summit. Fast forward 12 years, and we have essentially the same "climate change" treaty. (Incidentally, the term "global warming" has now lost credibility, even in scientific circles.) The Global Climate Treaty will be signed in December by 160 heads of state in Copenhagen.
Today, same as in 1997, the Global Climate Change Treaty does not have a prayer to be ratified, even by this "filibuster proof" Senate. Hmmm. Constitutional roadblock.
If you were power hungry, corrupt, owned by special interests, or just plain ignorant on policies that destroy the middle class, what would you do? How about a legislative end-run around the Constitution? Instead, we don't need 66 votes to ratify a treaty. All we need from the Senate is a simple majority to pass a domestic law on environment control.
Instead of the heavy constitutional-laden language of "treaty ratification," we'll simply pass a law and call it "Cap and Trade," which compels the American People to comply. The Senate tried the same tactic in 1998 after Kyoto. They don't have a prayer to get 66 senators to ratify the treaty, and they know it. The Senate requires only a simple majority and 60 cloture votes to break a filibuster, which they already have in their hip pocket. The Cap and Trade law puts in place a package of domestic laws for environmental compliance, and the carbon-credit trade mechanisms.
Now with Justice Soto-Major's recent appointment, to the Supreme Court, can we be assured the inevitable challenge to this unconstitutional maneuvering will sustained by our courts? This new Supreme Court hangs in such precarious balance, that it is a question of which I am almost afraid to ask.
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
