|
|
| Re: Are we winning yet? (1440227) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Are we winning yet? |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Tue Jun 6 14:28:48 2017, in response to Re: Are we winning yet?, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jun 6 12:46:29 2017. Actually, it's being "voluntary" is part of the point. If Trump had said "we're redefining America's goals [downward]" he could look forward to months or years of fights and (likely) lawsuits. If China or India or other countries decide not to abide by their bogus "commitments" don't look for any enforcement or domestic blowback.From my POV, we should have ended the charade of this voluntary "agreement" and all such international "agreements" that are not treaties that are proposed by the President and submitted for ratification by 2/3 of the Senators present. That's what the Constitution demands for a binding international obligation*. I am amazed by the immature response of our free press, opinion makers and politicians, that they argue about whether or not backing out of Obama's** executive agreement*** on climate is good or bad, instead of the fact that withdrawing is the proper response to an attempt to bind the U.S. to take actions outside of the Constitutional process.**** * And many people seem to believe it is a treaty; I had a discussion with another SubChatter on a different forum who thought it was a treaty that wasn't ratified by the Senate. ** No longer the President. *** in other words, a nullity once the Chief Executive withdraws it. Actually, Obama could have cancelled it himself, if he wanted. **** Of course, we're turning our back on "the rest of the world. So, as my mother would say "If all your friends jump would jump off a cliff, you would too?" [Actually I might have said "probably," but that doesn't make it a good idea.] |
|
|
|