Why the World Has to Wait on Barack Obama for the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty

By: Jim Byrd

U.S. President Barack Obama and various world leaders have decided to delay the legally binding climate treaty until at least 2010, with a concessionary tone that alluded to the possibility of delaying beyond 2010.

It was argued that legal technicalities might otherwise distract the talks in Copenhagen and it was better to focus on the core issue of cutting climate-warming emissions. I wonder if the legal technicalities may be the hesitation of a few of the more powerful and industrious nations on earth to become subservient to a committee whose members will consist of perpetual third-world countries with a blank check? Perhaps the United States and Barack Obama’s hesitation is due to the unconstitutional nature of the treaty? Could this be another losing venture, such as Obama’s Olympic sales pitch for Chicago? Could it be the fact that Obama needs 66 votes from the Senate to ratify the treaty and the likelihood of that happening is on par with his giving a speech and not using the pronoun “I” in a single instance? Could Obama see the parallels of Woodrow Wilson, his Nobel Peace Prize, and the humiliating defeat in the Senate of the ratification of the U. S. joining the League of Nations?

There are only four things you need to know about the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty:
• It will create a world government with omnipresent powers.
• Its purpose is the transfer of wealth from successful, self-sustaining, industrialized countries to unproductive, non self-sustaining, third-world countries. Since wealthy countries need energy to manufacture, produce, create, invent, etc, they burn more CO2 in their pursuits and have created a “climate debt” that must be paid, and the beneficiaries of this monetary redistribution are countries lacking the wherewithal and constructively functioning governments to survive without assistance.
• The treaty will give unelected and absolute enforcement to a band of Leftists with the collective character of Ali Baba and the 40 thieves. Imagine a world in which the U.N. has absolute enforcement powers.
• This treaty is as much about climate control as Nancy Pelosi’s health care bill is about health care.
So what is the hold up? The United States. Why? It has not so much to do with the fact that we are the largest industrial nation on the earth as it has to do with a socialist disdain for capitalism, plus we have all the money and they want it.

French environment minister Jean-Louis Borloo said it was clear that the main obstacle was the United States’ slow progress in defining its own potential emissions cuts. Borloo must be referring to the Waxman-Markey Bill that had the potential to bankrupt the United States and is a very watered-down version of the Copenhagen treaty.

International environmental radicals are in a highly agitated state because of the delay; before the delay, they smelled blood. Diane McFadzien, Climate Officer, Climate Witness Program [sic], said, “At APEC, there was far too much talk about delay. In Copenhagen, governments need to create a legally binding framework with an amended Kyoto Protocol and a new Copenhagen Protocol. Legally binding is the only thing that will do if we want to see real action to save the planet.” [Emphasis added.]

Barack Obama does have the power to sign a treaty according to Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
But two things have to align before the treaty becomes binding: [1] it must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate, and [2] the treaty must be within constitutional bounds; it must be constrained within the enumerated powers granted by the Constitution. This is a substantial problem that Obama and the Leftists in this county will engage with this treaty. Barack Obama and the Congress do not have the authority to approve nor sign the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty as it greatly exceeds the treaty making powers of the Congress and the treaty’s purpose in not granting an enumerated power. All federal and state legislation and treaties are servants of the Constitution, not vice versa, as is the design of this treaty.

The treaty making powers of the government are as follows:

Article VI, Clause 2 mandates:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Does this mean that a treaty is the supreme Law of the Land? Yes, but not as broadly as patriotic apostates would like to believe. A treaty is the Law of the Land as long as its design and functionality are subservient to the Constitution. A treaty carries the same weight as federal law except when in conflict with federal law, and in that instance, a legitimately ratified treaty trumps federal law. But, not if it conflicts with the Constitution.

The key phrase… made under the Authority of the United States… is the Achilles’ heel of any unscrupulous treaty, such as the Copenhagen treaty; the word under defines the paramount and unyielding authority the Constitution wields over all treaties regarding the United States when not aligned with the enumerated powers bestowed upon Congress by the Constitution.
Article 6 mentions … any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. Treaties are necessary for a country, and the framers’ intentions regarding treaties (read the minutes of the debates, their notes, and the Federalists Papers, and use common sense), and with the correct reading of Article 6, were that a legitimately ratified treaty would take precedence over state laws and state constitutions so long as it held the same validity as a constitutionally valid federal law. Article 6 never mentions nor implies that a treaty has the power to displace the Constitution; in fact, it states the opposite.
All laws and statutes passed by Congress will be voided by the Supreme Court if they are ruled unconstitutional. Treaties are subject to the same scrutiny.

The United States of America is the greatest sovereign nation on this earth. The founders knew they were creating a special and unique republican form of government. The founders left no stone unturned in the creation of the Constitution, and they especially didn’t leave an avenue for a foreign nation or agenda-driven world government to seize this country and usurp our Constitution by slithering in a backdoor left open by an opprobrious and desperate treaty, and steal our wealth in the name of whatever the socially driven agenda of the day is. No sovereign penetrating treaty, such as the Copenhagen treaty, signed by the president and ratified by a syndicate of Leftists in Congress, will bequeath this nation’s sovereignty to a self-serving world order. The characterization of committing this act can be summed up in one word: treason.

What a difference ten months can make. The following statement was made one year ago by president-elect Barack Obama: “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response.” Why the weakening in stance? It may be the fact that Obama and the Democrats in Congress have spent four years worth of political capital in a matter of months, and are in the midst of an exhaustive campaign to try and salvage what is left of their usurping of the Constitution with a stalled health care overhaul, a comatose cap and trade bill, and an economy, which they own, held in the quantitatively increasing grip of Barack Obama’s recession. With the prospect of a continuing decline in approval ratings, a GOP sweep of the 2010 and 2012 elections, and a constituency so rabidly agitated that a personal appearance at a town hall meeting is chilling, perhaps Obama realizes that forcing another financial albatross around the neck of the American people is not in the cards at this time.

Perhaps the real reason for Obama’s waffling could be the phenomenon of classical conditioning, better known as Pavlov’s dog theorem.

Obama received a scathing rebuke by Christian Schwägerl in Spiegel International, Europe’s largest weekly magazine. Schwägerl lamented that the success of the Copenhagen climate treaty depended almost entirely on the U.S. He subtly mocked Obama’s characterization as a “citizen of the world,” and accused Obama of lying to Europe during his world-wide campaign for the U.S. presidential election. He unflattering played the Nobel Peace Prize card against Obama, “The Nobel Committee should postpone the award of the Nobel Peace Prize from Dec. 10 to Dec. 20. Only if Obama has achieved a convincing deal at the Copenhagen conference will there be a real reason to honor him.” For an unabashed far-left liberal, Mr. Schwägerl seemed to be cruising down the road of reason, until he, as all liberals left of reason do, veered wildly off the road with this banal assessment of global warming,”If the rest of the world were to follow the US example in their approach to fossil fuels, the oceans would not only heat up, but would probably soon begin to boil.”

Mr. Schwägerl and Europe now realize what the disenchanted majority of Americans understand about Barack Obama: As with Pavlov’s dog, Obama, too, is conditioned by certain stimuli. Obama is conditioned to respond to applause and adulation by placating his audience with what they want to hear. When the applause and adulation fade, so does the unceremoniously abandoned covenant; he then scurries off in search of the next round of applause, leaving in his wake a swath of broken commitments.

About The Author Jim Byrd:
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.