Trump should kill Paris Accord

Uncategorized 1 Minute

CEI send Paris Accord to Senate

President Obama set out to implement the Paris Accord without sending it to the Senate for ratification by declaring it to be a legal fiction, a binding agreement that was not a treaty.

Trump left the accord, but Biden has promised to rejoin it on his first day. But if President Trump were to rejoin the accord, and accept it as a treaty, he could then send it to the Senate where it stands zero change of being ratified, permanently killing it no matter what Biden does.

He has every bit as much power to do that as Obama had to pretend it was not a treaty.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

11 thoughts on “Trump should kill Paris Accord”

  3. International agreements are not necessarily “treaties.” In fact, the vast majority of international agreements are NOT treaties. The key element that makes something a “treaty” is that it carries the force of law. It is binding on the United States and limits the ability of American courts, Congress and legislatures to abrogate its terms. There is nothing in the Paris Accord that rises to that level.

    Re-joining the accord would be a symbolic act. The Biden administration will pursue environmental policies that you abhor whether we are formally part of the Paris Accord or not. What you are espousing is just another unpatriotic thumb in the eye to the President chosen by the American people AFTER he made it clear what his priorities would be.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply

  4. I refer you to today’s Washington Post insert in the Pilot. Specifically the Five Myths column at the back of the insert.

    The Paris Accords were NEVER a treaty, just an agreement between 200-odd countries to attempt to do better.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. These facts will not convince those who want defend Trump’s behavior by playing “whatabout” by accusing President Obama of ignoring the Constitution by entering this agreement. Facts do not matter at all with that crowd.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. It crashed my browser a couple of time but I found it.

          While the “Accord” lacks penalties for non-compliance, it was still used as a basis for Executive branch mandates in the US, thus evading the Constitutional requirement for ratification .

          But just as Obama was able to interpret it as a non-treaty, Trump, using the same powers, accept it as a treaty and send it to the Senate

          Like

          Reply

          1. Uh, no he cannot.

            The agreement is NOT a treaty. It is not binding. No legislature, the Congress nor court is constrained by its existence. Trump accepted that it was not a treaty when he threw it out. He cannot do that with treaties.

            Your argument about it being the basis for Executive Branch mandates is nonsense. With or without the agreement the powers of the Executive Branch are what they are. The agreement did not add to them or detract from them. It may be the that the agreement was cited in this or that Executive Order. That is NOT the same as the agreement creating a new Executive power.

            Trumpkins need to get it through their heads. The law is to be followed. It is not a mere inconvenience to be lawyered away.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Like the piece …and I … said. it is NOT a treaty.

            And seeing as it was NEVER a treaty, Trump did not have to go to the Senate to pull out of the agreement. And Biden will not have to go to the Senate to rejoin it.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment