Why withdrawal from the Paris Accords is a big deal- and has nothing to do with climate change.

The State Department argues that under the Treaty on Treaties, the US is obligated to act as if the Senate had in fact ratified the accords, until such time as the Senate actually votes down ratification.

Which, the Senate cannot do, since Obama refused to submit it to the Senate.

Here's what that means- federal agencies would then impose regulations to effect the US standards required by the Paris accords, which would have the force of law, even to include civil and criminal penalties, and, as an added bonus, beyond the review of Congress.

You think Democrat infested bureaucracies weren't hard at work finding ways to stick it to unfavored groups, while finding creative ways to support pet causes? It’s not at all difficult to imagine industries that make generous contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative or Organizing For America somehow receiving exemptions and waivers to onerous regulations.

Whether or not one believes climate change is an important issue that calls for important policies to address, the Paris Climate Accord was not serious policy. Indeed, China and India essentially do nothing under it. Mind you, China is bringing a new coal fired power plant online every 10 days or so, and their plants are just a touch less environmentally fastidious than ours. Under the PCA, China would not even begin to  set a target until 2030. And even then, there’s no enforcement mechanism or punishment for failure to achieve a target.

But what PCA would do is bypass Congress and put enormous domestic power into the hands of unelected bureaucrats, even beyond that they possess today.

Surely this would be unconstitutional you say?

The Treaty of Treaties (which itself has never been submitted for ratification to the Senate) hasn’t been struck down by SCOTUS yet. Given the composition of the Court over the years, there’s always been a risk that SCOTUS would essentially kill the Constitution and hold that the State Department’s theory was valid.

See also this excellent piece.

And then, there’s this:

Comments

[KenH]

AND, the added bonus of seeing a bunch of retarded spazoids explode all over themselves in the ongoing infantile screamo-fest. AND .... IT Kicks Latte Jesus right in his fake porcelin death-head grin with a steel boot and obliterates most of his "legacy"

DELICIOUS

[blcartwright]

I would argue that a president can conduct his foreign policy as he sees fit and domestic policy within the laws written by Congress. If a treaty isn't submitted to and approved by the Senate it is meaningless. The president can follow the terms of the treaty, within the limits of his power, but any subsequent president can brush it aside because it's now law, only policy

[ron snyder]

One more appointment like Gorsuch on the SC and perhaps then this and other issues could be brought before the Supremes.

[Quartermaster]

Is the constitution in force, other than form? I hadn't noticed of late.

The left honors the constitution only when it is convenient to them. Otherwise, they ignore it. FedGov has no constitutional authority to do better than 95% of what FedGov does. Foreign relations, war, and interstate commerce is the limit of their purview.

[KenH]

It's going to be amusing how this pans out. You have 3 states now pandering to the spazoid retards about "we will have our own commitment to the Paris "treaty" " forgeting, UTTERLY that this is explicitly forbidden by Black-Letter Constitutional Law. Oh, so sweet

[Eric Wilner]

So, um.
This means that the President and any one foreign price or potentate can sign an agreement that supersedes the U. S. Constitution?
And the President is allowed to prevent the Senate from having any say in the matter?
When Melania talks her husband into signing an agreement with the Pope to ban not only abortion but most forms of contraception, the Progressives will be totally cool with this, right?

[ultimaratioregis]

@EricWilner,

DING DING DING DING DING!!!! We have a winner. I am crafting a post on precisely your idea of a concordat with the Pope. And wondering what the objections would be...

Well-said

[Quartermaster]

@URR

Such a "Concordat" would be utterly delicious. Although I would enjoy seeing libtard heads asploding (a particularly delicious form of daily 'Splodey) the idea is too dangerous to carry out.

Needless to say, the Treaty on Treaties is just as invalid as the Paris accord on the global warming/climate change hoax.