1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Who Do You Think We Are, Mr. President? Subjects or Citizens?

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Revmitchell, Dec 17, 2009.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Feb 18, 2006
    Likes Received:
    ...........Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution is crystal clear: “He [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 1997, the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to tell President Clinton that it was the view of the Senate that the United States should not sign any international agreement on climate change that either did not mandate all countries to limit emissions or which would otherwise result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.

    Nevertheless, Vice President Al Gore signed an agreement a few months later that did not meet the Senate’s test. Knowing how the Senate would vote, President Clinton never even bothered to submit this Kyoto agreement to the U.S. Senate. It would have been dead on arrival and President Clinton wasn’t interested in political embarrassment.

    Twelve years later the world has moved from Kyoto to Copenhagen but the same dynamics apply. Instead of having taken a formal vote, the U.S. Senate has stalled in its effort to adopt binding cap and trade carbon emission reductions along the lines that President Obama, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the delegates in Copenhagen would have the U.S. do. While not the same as a 95-0 vote, the situation in the U.S. Senate conveys the same message: no cap and trade deal is going to get out of the Senate, either as ordinary legislation or as a part of an international agreement that would require the approval of 2/3 of the Senate.

    Just like Vice President Al Gore before him, President Obama might sign such an agreement with great fanfare and receive the accolades of fawning delegates from around the world, only to return home and be bitterly reminded that his signature, without the Senate’s approval, is meaningless.

    Yet, today, President Obama is asserting that the constitutional principles governing Gore and Clinton in 1997 don’t apply to him in 2009.

    How’s that?

    It seems that our president, a Harvard law graduate and former constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, has discovered an interpretation of our Constitution that had escaped the notice of two centuries of American citizens and lawyers and judges before him.
    President Obama’s apparent view is that the Environmental Protection Agency, one of his executive branch agencies, can claim the regulatory power to impose, on its own authority, a system of taxation akin to what the Congress has so far refused to adopt. And since the executive branch can now implement what the legislative branch has failed to enact, then there is no need to get the Senate’s approval for a Copenhagen agreement.

    This is, to say the least, a most curious interpretation of our Constitution. What’s next? Secretary Sebelius deciding that the Senate debate on health care reform has become tiresome, so she claims power for the HHS to reorder the healthcare economy on her own authority?

    The unilateral assertion of power by the Executive Branch in advance of the Copenhagen Conference caused at least one U.S. Senator from the president’s own party, Jim Webb of Virginia, to write a fairly pointed letter to the President reminding him of the provisions of the Constitution that apply to the powers of the Legislative Branch:

    Dear Mr. President:

    I would like to express my concern regarding reports that the Administration may believe it has the unilateral power to commit the government of the United States to certain standards that may be agreed upon at the upcoming United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark. The phrase “politically binding” has been used.

    Although details have not been made available, recent statements by Special Envoy on Climate Change Todd Stern indicate that negotiators may be intending to commit the United States to a nationwide emission reduction program. As you well know from your time in the Senate, only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress, or a treaty ratified by the Senate, could actually create such a commitment on behalf of our country.

    I would very much appreciate having this matter clarified in advance of the Copenhagen meetings.
    Jim Webb
    United States Senator

    More Here
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Nov 21, 2004
    Likes Received:
    Obama has a Marxist mindset, therefore, we don't quite raise to the level of subjects.
  3. MrJim

    MrJim New Member

    Apr 22, 2007
    Likes Received:
    I think Senator Webb~Democrat/Virginia~didn't get the memo that Democrat senators are not supposed to make waves[​IMG]
  4. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Oct 14, 2004
    Likes Received:
    The only "clarification" he has received is a committment made by Hillary Clinton today i copenhagen , on behalf of the U.S., that we will indeed contribute to a $100 billion a year fund for the 3rd world countries as part of a climate agreement.