CDZ If Greg Gutfeld is right about the Paris Treaty....how is he wrong?

[2aguy]

Greg Gutfeld gives a good breakdown of the folly of our ever having joined the Paris Climate Treaty...an agreement for us since it was joined unConstitutionally because the Senate never ratified the treaty......

How is Gutfeld wrong...since he is right on the details......?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hint: it was not a Treaty.

No Senate ratification necessary.

Next.

 

[2aguy]

Hint: it was not a Treaty.

No Senate ratification necessary.

Next.

It was a treaty, obama just ignored the ratification process........and the rinos let him get away with it...they should have taken him into court...

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, 2aguy, you are not any authority (civic, governmental, etc.) on the process.

The Accord was constitutional, and that fries your grits.

 

[2aguy]

No, 2aguy, you are not any authority (civic, governmental, etc.) on the process.

The Accord was constitutional, and that fries your grits.

No...it wasn't......it was a treaty....that is what everyone else calls it.....it needed to be ratified by the Senate...and obama didn't submit it to the Senate because he knew it wouldn't pass...

 

[2aguy]

No, 2aguy, you are not any authority (civic, governmental, etc.) on the process.

The Accord was constitutional, and that fries your grits.

Here you go...

The Paris Agreement Is a Treaty and Should Be Submitted to the Senate

 

[JakeStarkey]

Stephen Groves is the head of the anti-American Freedom Project, 2aguy.

If it is illegal, all Trump has to do is say it is illegal. Unfortunately (for you), the Accord is legal.

 

[task0778]

Since the US Senate did not ratify it, the Paris Accords (PA) is not a legal treaty but rather an Executive Agreement. Obama used his executive authority to sign it, and Trump can use his executive authority to pull out of it. The bad news is that under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty that we signed in 1992 and was ratified by the Senate, the US withdrawal wouldn't be effective until 3 years after the PA was signed (Nov 2019). But Trump can hurry that along by withdrawing from the UNFCCC too, thus negating the 3 year commitment down to 1 year. [The above is from analysis by the Congressional Research Service.]

 

[DarkFury]

No, 2aguy, you are not any authority (civic, governmental, etc.) on the process.

The Accord was constitutional, and that fries your grits.

The agreement was NON binding and NOT able to be enforced.
EXCEPT for the part where WE agreed to pay for everything. And THAT makes it ILLEGAL because it is the House that sets the budget and spending NOT the president.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, 2aguy, you are not any authority (civic, governmental, etc.) on the process.

The Accord was constitutional, and that fries your grits.

The agreement was NON binding and NOT able to be enforced.
EXCEPT for the part where WE agreed to pay for everything. And THAT makes it ILLEGAL because it is the House that sets the budget and spending NOT the president.

Read what I wrote to 2aguy, please.

 

[DarkFury]

No, 2aguy, you are not any authority (civic, governmental, etc.) on the process.

The Accord was constitutional, and that fries your grits.

The agreement was NON binding and NOT able to be enforced.
EXCEPT for the part where WE agreed to pay for everything. And THAT makes it ILLEGAL because it is the House that sets the budget and spending NOT the president.

Read what I wrote to 2aguy, please.

I did but your still wrong. Who sets spending and budget Jake? Link.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, 2aguy, you are not any authority (civic, governmental, etc.) on the process.

The Accord was constitutional, and that fries your grits.

The agreement was NON binding and NOT able to be enforced.
EXCEPT for the part where WE agreed to pay for everything. And THAT makes it ILLEGAL because it is the House that sets the budget and spending NOT the president.

Read what I wrote to 2aguy, please.

I did but your still wrong. Who sets spending and budget Jake? Link.

Of course you are wrong. No one of any merit in government has challenged it the way you want and made any head way. You are entitled to your belief, yes.

 

[DarkFury]

No, 2aguy, you are not any authority (civic, governmental, etc.) on the process.

The Accord was constitutional, and that fries your grits.

The agreement was NON binding and NOT able to be enforced.
EXCEPT for the part where WE agreed to pay for everything. And THAT makes it ILLEGAL because it is the House that sets the budget and spending NOT the president.

Read what I wrote to 2aguy, please.

I did but your still wrong. Who sets spending and budget Jake? Link.

Of course you are wrong. No one of any merit in government has challenged it the way you want and made any head way. You are entitled to your belief, yes.

Where is that link Jake?
Budget resolutions[edit]
The President's budget submission is referred to the House and Senate Budget Committeesand to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Other committees with budgetary responsibilities submit requests and estimates to the budget committees during this time.

In March, the CBO publishes an analysis of the President's budget proposals. The CBO budget report and other publications are also posted on the CBO website. CBO computes a current-law baseline budget projection that is intended to estimate what federal spending and revenues would be in the absence of new legislation for the current fiscal year and for the coming 10 fiscal years. However, the CBO also computes a current-policy baseline, which makes assumptions about, for instance, votes on tax cut sunset provisions. The current CBO 10-year budget baseline projection grows from $3.7 trillion in 2011 to $5.7 trillion in 2021.[citation needed]
United States budget process - Wikipedia

Executive agreement. ... However, under United States constitutional law, executive agreements are not considered treaties for the purpose of the Treaty Clause of the United States Constitution, which requires the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate to qualify as a treaty.
Executive agreement - Wikipedia
Executive agreement - Wikipedia

Funny Shit Stain called it a treaty! Guess he lied.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't need a link, DarkFury, because you have made an affirmation with no proof that Congressional approval is required.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Greg Gutfeld gives a good breakdown of the folly of our ever having joined the Paris Climate Treaty...an agreement for us since it was joined unConstitutionally because the Senate never ratified the treaty......

How is Gutfeld wrong...since he is right on the details......?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't need a link, DarkFury, because you have made an affirmation with no proof that Congressional approval is required.

Waiting for your evidence.

 

[depotoo]

From the Congressional Research Office


Sole executive agreements rely on neither treaty nor congressional authority to provide for their legal basis. The Constitution may confer limited authority upon the President to promulgate such agreements on the basis of his foreign affairs power.34 If the President enters into an executive agreement pursuant to and dealing with an area where he has clear, exclusive constitutional authority—such as an agreement to recognize a particular foreign government for diplomatic purposes—the agreement is legally permissible regardless of Congress’s opinion on the matter.35

If, however, the President enters into an agreement and his constitutional authority over the agreement’s subject matter is unclear, a reviewing court may consider Congress’s position in determining whether the agreement is legitimate.36 If Congress has given its implicit approval to the President entering the agreement, or is silent on the matter, it is more likely that the agreement will be deemed valid. When Congress opposes the agreement and the President’s constitutional authority to enter the agreement is ambiguous, it is unclear if or when such an agreement would be given effect. The Litvinov Assignment, under which the Soviet Union purported to assign to the United States claims to American assets in Russia that had previously been nationalized by the Soviet Union, is an example of a sole executive agreement.




And the Senate weighed in against it-
Obama will bypass Senate, ratify Paris climate accord himself during trip to China: report

Stephen Groves is the head of the anti-American Freedom Project, 2aguy.

If it is illegal, all Trump has to do is say it is illegal. Unfortunately (for you), the Accord is legal.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama is presumed to have the legal authority to enter into such an agreement until a conclusive decision by the federal judiciary is completed.

The Accord is legal until then.

Sorry, Depotoo, this comes from your post above.