ADVERTISEMENT

For those who demean those that disagree with your position

You might have missed my point. Lemme help. The Paris accords - whatever it was called, SHOULD have been treated like the treaty it is and that requires ratification by the Senate. Obama conveniently decided to try to give it the force of a treaty without having the Senate ratify because he knew damned well that it could never get ratified if he followed the Constitution. I'm not talking about any future ratification. I'm noting the extra-Constitutional effort by a former President to wire around the Constitution - not an unusual feature of his term, but distinct from anything to do with present or future.

Unfortunately Congress has decided in recent decades to outsource most of their responsibilities to the executive branch, because they've become politically paralyzed.
 
Most people who voted for Trump were not voting for the man, obviously. They were voting for his positions against big government, open borders, unfair trade deals, weak foreign policy and against HRC.......get it?

306/232
Ironically, you don't see how ridiculous this is. You voted for a pathological liar based on his...pathological lies!?! Get it?

You'd come off as something resembling a reasoning intelligent being if you rather said you voted for him in hopes he'd get impeached as a way to put Pence in office. But then you'd have to reason that way. Oh well...
 
You might have missed my point. Lemme help. The Paris accords - whatever it was called, SHOULD have been treated like the treaty it is and that requires ratification by the Senate. Obama conveniently decided to try to give it the force of a treaty without having the Senate ratify because he knew damned well that it could never get ratified if he followed the Constitution. I'm not talking about any future ratification. I'm noting the extra-Constitutional effort by a former President to wire around the Constitution - not an unusual feature of his term, but distinct from anything to do with present or future.
There is nothing unconstitutional about a valid executive agreement.
 
Unfortunately Congress has decided in recent decades to outsource most of their responsibilities to the executive branch, because they've become politically paralyzed.

Our Constitution set up a system where consensus is required to move forward. The efforts to jam major laws down the throat of the opposing party has failed precisely because it is supposed to fail.

No President can change that.
 
There is nothing unconstitutional about a valid executive agreement.

That's an important point. An executive agreement has no shelf-life. It isn't a treaty. When you get down to it, Paris really isn't an an agreement, an accord or whatever. It is largely an international political statement about climate change. Uncle Sam's commitments were self-imposed and were in the nature of promises of future actions and appropriations. The Obama administration attempted implementation only with EO's and administrative rule making--not through law making. Trump ran on, and gave ample notice of, a commitment to change course. And he did that. The reaction from many US pols, pundits and the same from across the globe pretend like Trump broke a treaty.
 
There is nothing unconstitutional about a valid executive agreement.

Unconstitutional, no. Alas, the Constitution doesn't give a great deal of guidance about what does and doesn't constitute a treaty. I don't think statute does either.

But the State Department does have established policy (Circular 175) clarifying what distinguishes an executive agreement from a treaty. They use 8 factors:

(1) The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole;

(2) Whether the agreement is intended to affect state laws;

(3) Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress;

(4) Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements;

(5) The preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement;

(6) The degree of formality desired for an agreement;

(7) The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of concluding a routine or short-term agreement;

(8) The general international practice as to similar agreements.


Furthermore, when the Senate was deliberating ratification of the UNFCCC Treaty in 1992, the Senate asked the Bush (41) Administration if specific emissions commitments made pursuant to the UNFCCC would be put before the Senate for Advice/Consent. And they said that they would.

So, I don't think there's any Constitutional crisis involved with the Obama Administration forgoing Senate ratification of Paris. But I do think it was appropriate for them to have sought it. The closest thing we have to rules delineating Treaties from executive agreements would say so -- but, perhaps more importantly, the governing treaty under which they're operating was ratified with this assurance.
 
Unconstitutional, no. Alas, the Constitution doesn't give a great deal of guidance about what does and doesn't constitute a treaty. I don't think statute does either.

But the State Department does have established policy (Circular 175) clarifying what distinguishes an executive agreement from a treaty. They use 8 factors:

(1) The extent to which the agreement involves commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole;

(2) Whether the agreement is intended to affect state laws;

(3) Whether the agreement can be given effect without the enactment of subsequent legislation by the Congress;

(4) Past U.S. practice as to similar agreements;

(5) The preference of the Congress as to a particular type of agreement;

(6) The degree of formality desired for an agreement;

(7) The proposed duration of the agreement, the need for prompt conclusion of an agreement, and the desirability of concluding a routine or short-term agreement;

(8) The general international practice as to similar agreements.


Furthermore, when the Senate was deliberating ratification of the UNFCCC Treaty in 1992, the Senate asked the Bush (41) Administration if specific emissions commitments made pursuant to the UNFCCC would be put before the Senate for Advice/Consent. And they said that they would.

So, I don't think there's any Constitutional crisis involved with the Obama Administration forgoing Senate ratification of Paris. But I do think it was appropriate for them to have sought it. The closest thing we have to rules delineating Treaties from executive agreements would say so -- but, perhaps more importantly, the governing treaty under which they're operating was ratified with this assurance.
Maybe it would have been appropriate, but we both know it's simply not possible with the modern GOP. Paris was designed specifically so it would not need Senate approval, because everyone knew what would happen otherwise.

Not the ideal way to do things, but so long as one of our major parties takes an anti-science nut job position on climate change, it's necessary.
 
Most people who voted for Trump were not voting for the man, obviously. They were voting for his positions against big government, open borders, unfair trade deals, weak foreign policy and against HRC.......get it?

306/232
Nope, they voted for the man. His name was on the ballot. They ignored all his hateful rhetoric and voted for Donald Trump. Many of them probably still can't tell you what his policies were , just like he couldn't, beyond, build that wall.
 
Most people who voted for Trump were not voting for the man, obviously. They were voting for his positions against big government, open borders, unfair trade deals, weak foreign policy and against HRC.......get it?

306/232
And yet, he hasn't really done much of anything, and what he has done has been the opposite of what he said he's going to do. So good job there.
 
That's an important point. An executive agreement has no shelf-life. It isn't a treaty. When you get down to it, Paris really isn't an an agreement, an accord or whatever. It is largely an international political statement about climate change. Uncle Sam's commitments were self-imposed and were in the nature of promises of future actions and appropriations. The Obama administration attempted implementation only with EO's and administrative rule making--not through law making. Trump ran on, and gave ample notice of, a commitment to change course. And he did that. The reaction from many US pols, pundits and the same from across the globe pretend like Trump broke a treaty.

Too many these days don't care about the actual law.
They demand a certain result - and the law be damned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ladoga
That's an important point. An executive agreement has no shelf-life. It isn't a treaty. When you get down to it, Paris really isn't an an agreement, an accord or whatever. It is largely an international political statement about climate change. Uncle Sam's commitments were self-imposed and were in the nature of promises of future actions and appropriations. The Obama administration attempted implementation only with EO's and administrative rule making--not through law making. Trump ran on, and gave ample notice of, a commitment to change course. And he did that. The reaction from many US pols, pundits and the same from across the globe pretend like Trump broke a treaty.
Too many these days don't care about the actual law.
They demand a certain result - and the law be damned.
I don't know what points you two are trying to make, but they don't follow from my post. Fact is executive agreements are constitutional. Ladoga seemed unclear on that point.
 
There is nothing unconstitutional about a valid executive agreement.
Except that it was a treaty using the name executive agreement as a dodge to get around that burdensome old Constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify treaties. The then President knew perfectly well that he could never get ratification in the Senate so he called it something other than what it was - a treaty.
 
Except that it was a treaty using the name executive agreement as a dodge to get around that burdensome old Constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify treaties. The then President knew perfectly well that he could never get ratification in the Senate so he called it something other than what it was - a treaty.
No, it was an executive agreement. They crafted the language specifically to avoid the need for Senate approval.
 
No, it was an executive agreement. They crafted the language specifically to avoid the need for Senate approval.

Do you think that was a good thing?

Or should the democratic process set forth in the Constitution and laws be used because, well, democracy and law?

Example - should President Trump use the same process to (for example) implement immigration reform?
 
Do you think that was a good thing?

Or should the democratic process set forth in the Constitution and laws be used because, well, democracy and law?

Example - should President Trump use the same process to (for example) implement immigration reform?
Context:

[T]reaties serve as a tiny fraction of international agreements. From the vantage of the White House, this makes perfect sense: Achieving a 2/3 vote authorizing ratification has become increasingly implausible no matter what treaty is under discussion. Recall that in 2012, even Bob Dole’s dramatic wheelchair-bound appearance on the Senate floor failed to convince his former colleagues to support the Bush-negotiated Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which fell six votes short of the 67 needed.

Yet the trend far predates the current state of polarization, as Loch Johnson’s 1984 book on this topic makes clear. A hugely useful Congressional Research Service report updated just last month notes that more than 18,500 executive agreements have been entered into since 1789: more than 17,000 of them from 1939 on. By the mid-1920s, the number of executive agreements had started to outpace the number of treaties, a trend vastly accelerated by World War II; between 1953 and 1972, more than three-quarters of significant military commitments abroad were conducted via executive agreement rather than by treaty. These included, in the mid-1960s, major commitments to the defense of such nations as Ethiopia, Thailand and Spain. In the last case, the U.S. pledged to protect Spain (which did not join NATO until 1982) against attack in exchange for the right to use Spanish soil for military bases.
The main difference between a treaty and an executive agreement is that a subsequent president can rescind an executive agreement, as Trump has done here. But there is nothing unconstitutional or extra-legal about executive agreements, notwithstanding conservatives' opposition to this one.
 
The main difference between a treaty and an executive agreement is that a subsequent president can rescind an executive agreement, as Trump has done here. But there is nothing unconstitutional or extra-legal about executive agreements, notwithstanding conservatives' opposition to this one.

Mmm, that's not entirely true. Read the 8 points of differentiation that the State Department cites in Circular 175 -- I listed them above. There's a lot more to consider than whether or not successive presidents can unilaterally undo it.

Granted, Circular 175 isn't found in the Constitution or statutory law. But it is, anyway, a longstanding guideline -- and in the regulatory books (11 FAM 720).
 
Do you think that was a good thing?

Or should the democratic process set forth in the Constitution and laws be used because, well, democracy and law?

Example - should President Trump use the same process to (for example) implement immigration reform?
In this case, it was a necessary thing. If we had two political parties willing to engage the international community on this issue, we probably could have had a treaty with real teeth. Instead, we had to settle for non-binding, aspirational language that was still too much for the GOP.

If Trump can find a way to deal with immigration using executive agreements, he's welcome to try. I don't see how it's possible. The difference is more than just a matter of process.
 
In this case, it was a necessary thing. If we had two political parties willing to engage the international community on this issue, we probably could have had a treaty with real teeth. Instead, we had to settle for non-binding, aspirational language that was still too much for the GOP.

If Trump can find a way to deal with immigration using executive agreements, he's welcome to try. I don't see how it's possible. The difference is more than just a matter of process.

Hmm, that sounds like a pretty bad precedent to set: either we elect the people who will do X, or else we'll find a way to do X some other way.

I think it's probably better to approach these matters in a way that works within (a) the system and (b) the realm of possibility . I do not think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama couldn't have gotten 67 votes in the Senate for any formal adoption of Paris. He may not have gotten precisely the kind of adoption he wanted, but that's part and parcel to our system. It's supposed to be give and take -- not "do it my way or I'll do it some other way without you." And I don't care if the subject is immigration, climate change, taxes, or anything else.

Anyway, it's a fait accompli now. But I don't like that we seem to be creeping in this direction -- regardless who the president is.
 
Hmm, that sounds like a pretty bad precedent to set: either we elect the people who will do X, or else we'll find a way to do X some other way.

I think it's probably better to approach these matters in a way that works within (a) the system and (b) the realm of possibility . I do not think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama couldn't have gotten 67 votes in the Senate for any formal adoption of Paris. He may not have gotten precisely the kind of adoption he wanted, but that's part and parcel to our system. It's supposed to be give and take -- not "do it my way or I'll do it some other way without you." And I don't care if the subject is immigration, climate change, taxes, or anything else.

Anyway, it's a fait accompli now. But I don't like that we seem to be creeping in this direction -- regardless who the president is.
As I pointed out above, we aren't creeping there. We've been there for a very long time. Treaties are a tiny fraction of our international agreements.
 
I do not think it's a foregone conclusion that Obama couldn't have gotten 67 votes in the Senate for any formal adoption of Paris. He may not have gotten precisely the kind of adoption he wanted, but that's part and parcel to our system.
Now you're embarrassing yourself.
 
That's not what I said.

Well, it certainly seems like a pretty accurate summation of what you were saying. But I'm willing to hear you out.

I should point out that I'm not arguing that Obama was constitutionally compelled to get Senate a&c. But I would reiterate that the UNFCCC was ratified with the expressed understanding that such subsequent commitments would be referred to the Senate. Taking that commitment along with the guidelines of Circular 175, I think he should've done so.

This wasn't the only thing he did where should've involved the legislative branch, but didn't. Of course, I'm talking about DACA and DAPA -- as well as the Obamacare subsidies that are now being used as leverage by the Trump Administration.

If he'd have done these things the way he should've, it would've precluded his successor from unraveling them with the stroke of a pen.
 
Well, it certainly seems like a pretty accurate summation of what you were saying. But I'm willing to hear you out.

I should point out that I'm not arguing that Obama was constitutionally compelled to get Senate a&c. But I would reiterate that the UNFCCC was ratified with the expressed understanding that such subsequent commitments would be referred to the Senate. Taking that commitment along with the guidelines of Circular 175, I think he should've done so.

This wasn't the only thing he did where should've involved the legislative branch, but didn't. Of course, I'm talking about DACA and DAPA -- as well as the Obamacare subsidies that are now being used as leverage by the Trump Administration.

If he'd have done these things the way he should've, it would've precluded his successor from unraveling them with the stroke of a pen.
What I said was essentially, "It would be great to do X, but we can't, because the Senate GOP has abdicated all responsibility on this issue and made it clear they will agree to nothing even remotely resembling X. Therefore, we settled for Y, which wasn't as good as X, but didn't need Senate approval, and at least moves us in the right direction."

I find it humorous that part of your argument is based on the idea that something the Bush administration said should somehow bind the Obama administration. If presidents felt bound by their predecessors, we wouldn't be having this debate.
 
What I said was essentially, "It would be great to do X, but we can't, because the Senate GOP has abdicated all responsibility on this issue and made it clear they will agree to nothing even remotely resembling X. Therefore, we settled for Y, which wasn't as good as X, but didn't need Senate approval, and at least moves us in the right direction."

How is that materially different from my summation? In this case, X and Y were essentially the same thing (except for the binding nature, of course). It seems like you're just saying that if Congress won't go along with what a president wants to do, he should just find some other way to do it.

Whether or not you think it's the "right direction" or the "wrong direction" is irrelevant.

I find it humorous that part of your argument is based on the idea that something the Bush administration said should somehow bind the Obama administration. If presidents felt bound by their predecessors, we wouldn't be having this debate.

Well, the UNFCCC was ratified with that understanding. It's possible it may not have been ratified if the executive branch at the time had said "That's up to future presidents, Senator." But, again, I'm not saying this assurance establishes any sort of legal requirement. I've never said that Obama was, in any way, bound to get A&C. I'm saying that, for a variety of reasons, he should have. He might not have gotten precisely the deal he'd have preferred, granted. But at least it would've had some staying power.

He did a variety of things without Congressional involvement. And I'd be surprised if many of them last very long because of it. Look at the Obamacare insurance subsidies -- he never sought formal budget appropriation. As such, he handed Trump a very convenient tool with which to force the issue on Obamacare.
 
How is that materially different from my summation? In this case, X and Y were essentially the same thing (except for the binding nature, of course).
You answered your own question. What about this key difference are you failing to grasp?

He might not have gotten precisely the deal he'd have preferred, granted.
LOL. He wouldn't have gotten anything ratified, and you damn well know it. Two dozen Senators at least said as much publicly, and the majority leader basically told world leaders, "Don't count on the administration's promises; Congress is going to actively work to dismantle anything Obama does on this issue."
 
Except that it was a treaty using the name executive agreement as a dodge to get around that burdensome old Constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify treaties. The then President knew perfectly well that he could never get ratification in the Senate so he called it something other than what it was - a treaty.

This is more akin to coworkers starting a weight loss contest than a treaty. No real enforcement mechanisms, just shaming each other into trying to do better.
 
This is more akin to coworkers starting a weight loss contest than a treaty. No real enforcement mechanisms, just shaming each other into trying to do better.

This being the case, it puzzles me just how much of a conniption fit so many have had regarding our withdrawal. If there are no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties for failing to meet commitments, and the commitments are self-determined anyway, then why all the pearl-clutching?
 
This being the case, it puzzles me just how much of a conniption fit so many have had regarding our withdrawal. If there are no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties for failing to meet commitments, and the commitments are self-determined anyway, then why all the pearl-clutching?
The question you should be asking is why cancel the agreement. It's always better for the anarchy of nations currently existing on this planet, with nuclear weapons galore, to practice consensus than not. Sheesh.

It's amazing how conservatives (not sure about you) can have conniptions about terrorism and insist that civil nations join us in the fight against terrorism and then turn around and flip the world the bird as if the world couldn't care less.

Do you actually live inside a molecular bubble? Serious question.
 
This being the case, it puzzles me just how much of a conniption fit so many have had regarding our withdrawal. If there are no enforcement mechanisms, no penalties for failing to meet commitments, and the commitments are self-determined anyway, then why all the pearl-clutching?

Which is like all the bitching about being in it.
 
Yep. It's climate denial plus pseudo-constitutional angle bargle.

.
And this supposed to be the "Can Do" country. When was the last time we were presented with a challenge and actually stepped up? Technologically speaking i think getting to the moon was the last big idea that we hunkered down and did it.

Now we whine that things are to hard and it will put us at a disadvantage. It's as if people don't realize that global warming is our next big job creator (as horrible as that sounds).

Carbon Sequestration
Wind
Solar
Tidal
Geothermal
Energy efficient design
HVAC
Insulation materials
Battery materials
...

Instead we deny, whine and acquiesce the lead position to China. Good God It's embarrassing!


Wrong. nothing was done by pulling out of the agreement to change the direction our country is taking with respect to CO2 emissions. The agreement that allowed China to continue to increase its emissions for 13 more years is ludicrous. This agreement allows China to continue stealing jobs while we tighten the noose tighter around our companies. They already put out almost twice as much CO2 than us. We are reducing and will continue to reduce by continue movement to natural gas and renewable sources. The rhetoric coming out of Dems and the Media on this was absurdly misleading.....typical.
 
The rhetoric coming out of Dems and the Media on this was absurdly misleading

That you can type that with a straight face in the same paragraph as,

This agreement allows China to continue stealing jobs while we tighten the noose tighter around our companies.

gives one a good indication about how seriously to take your assessment of "misleading rhetoric".
 
I don't know what points you two are trying to make, but they don't follow from my post. Fact is executive agreements are constitutional. Ladoga seemed unclear on that point.
This "executive order" in my opinion is a treaty and should have been ratified to have any force and effect. It is now undone - you noticed perhaps - and that's a very good thing. As CO noted - its shelf life - at least of effectiveness - is zero. Had it been ratified as a treaty it would yet be in effect. But, the previous administration knew for sure that they couldn't get it ratified, so they played a PR game they thought PResident CLinton would protect. Opppssss..........
 
.



Wrong. nothing was done by pulling out of the agreement to change the direction our country is taking with respect to CO2 emissions. The agreement that allowed China to continue to increase its emissions for 13 more years is ludicrous. This agreement allows China to continue stealing jobs while we tighten the noose tighter around our companies. They already put out almost twice as much CO2 than us. We are reducing and will continue to reduce by continue movement to natural gas and renewable sources. The rhetoric coming out of Dems and the Media on this was absurdly misleading.....typical.

Make up your mind, either:
"nothing was done by pulling out of the agreement to change the direction our country is taking with respect to CO2 emissions."
or
"This agreement allows China to continue stealing jobs while we tighten the noose tighter around our companies."

But you can't do both.

We pulled of a non-binding agreement because trump has a hard-on for all things Obama. Did it change anything on the global warming front; probably not, at least in the short term. What it did do is make us look like science denying rubes and it allows someone else to fill in the leadership void on a global issue.
 
Make up your mind, either:
"nothing was done by pulling out of the agreement to change the direction our country is taking with respect to CO2 emissions."
or
"This agreement allows China to continue stealing jobs while we tighten the noose tighter around our companies."

But you can't do both.

We pulled of a non-binding agreement because trump has a hard-on for all things Obama. Did it change anything on the global warming front; probably not, at least in the short term. What it did do is make us look like science denying rubes and it allows someone else to fill in the leadership void on a global issue.

The point was by pulling out of the accord nothing was done to reverse our improvement trend regarding co2 reductions. Does giving China 13 more years of increases in emissions help the global warming issue? Huh? My second comment was really simple to understand. As far as world leadership Trump changed the direction on this because it was a bad deal for us and a great deal for China. Obama retrenched us from leadership in several areas that caused a seismic shift in the balance of power.
 
The point was by pulling out of the accord nothing was done to reverse our improvement trend regarding co2 reductions. Does giving China 13 more years of increases in emissions help the global warming issue? Huh? My second comment was really simple to understand. As far as world leadership Trump changed the direction on this because it was a bad deal for us and a great deal for China. Obama retrenched us from leadership in several areas that caused a seismic shift in the balance of power.
The Paris agreement didn't give China 13 years of increased emissions. You are just repeating a Trump talking point that was factually inaccurate.
 
Make up your mind, either:
"nothing was done by pulling out of the agreement to change the direction our country is taking with respect to CO2 emissions."
or
"This agreement allows China to continue stealing jobs while we tighten the noose tighter around our companies."

But you can't do both.

We pulled of a non-binding agreement because trump has a hard-on for all things Obama. Did it change anything on the global warming front; probably not, at least in the short term. What it did do is make us look like science denying rubes and it allows someone else to fill in the leadership void on a global issue.
Exactly. This has very little direct effect on climate change. But it does have a direct effect on America's standing in the world, and not a positive one.
 
ADVERTISEMENT