Get US out of the UN?
So now the UN has decided to step in, and will try to block the US withdrawing from the bogus Paris Treaty, not Treaty.
You know, the Birchers always had signs that said "Get US out of the UN!" Some people thought that they were nuts, but I am beginning to say not so much now.
Ambassador Hailey needs to explain to the UN, that Treaties are not valid until the Senate ratifies them. A President has NO AUTHORITY to commit the nation to anything on his own. In reality, that is the point of the Senate on Treaties. They represent the several states, and it is by 2/3rds Majority that a treaty is ratified. It is essentially adding it to the Constitution.
Of course, back in the 90s, President Clinton had signed the Kyoto Treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate, knowing full well that it would NEVER be ratified. President W announced that we were no longer on board. He should have submitted it to the Senate to turn it down, rather than unilaterally disregarding it.
Any agreement that imposes future obligations on the United States internationally MUST be ratified that way. In fact, when the Senate approved the US getting into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was very clear that any agreement binding the US would be subject to a Senate Ratification. Neither Kyoto or Paris were submitted because they stood no chance to become law. Oh, and maybe the Iran Agreement? The GOP shot itself in the nether reaches on that one. See? Establishment GOP, Democrat Party, no difference.
Kyoto didn't matter, it was a voluntary goal. Paris is different, even though "technically" not required, judging by the UN's actions, I suspect it is required.
Maybe Michael Bloomberg can fund the UN as well as wanting to fund the Paris deal. Well, good for him, we'll see if he really will put his money where his mouth is. I mean, that they need to understand that we will not be bullied around by a bunch of antidemocratic thugs. I would say that the President would probably be able to smooth over the UN with a threat of withholding funding.
Bonus:
All judges that have heard the case on the President's travel ban have violated their Oaths of office, by admitting that had anyone else issued the Executive Orders, they would have been upheld. Why isn't Congress acting? Where are the impeachment hearings? They are ruling, NOT on the law, but on FEEWINGS. So my question to you is this: When did PRESIDENT Trump ever mention a MUSLIM BAN, and where is it in the EO? I mean, many of the countries in the "ban" aren't even really functioning countries right now.
Syria? Chaos
Iran? World's largest state sponsor of terror
Sudan? Chaos
Libya? Chaos
Somalia? Chaos
Yemen? Chaos.
I can't even believe we are discussing them. The only country on the list that has a truly functioning system to track and process individuals for Visas, background checks, etc, is the world's largest state sponsor of terror! And if those bogus rulings stand, then Ocare should have been overturned, simply because we were told "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", (and plan). Just sayin'.
And how does that look in light of the latest attacks in London? Still playing the same old game. I wonder who? I leave you with this clip from a short lived show on Fox News. The half hour news hour. https://youtu.be/Rd8cRvZZv44
You know, the Birchers always had signs that said "Get US out of the UN!" Some people thought that they were nuts, but I am beginning to say not so much now.
Ambassador Hailey needs to explain to the UN, that Treaties are not valid until the Senate ratifies them. A President has NO AUTHORITY to commit the nation to anything on his own. In reality, that is the point of the Senate on Treaties. They represent the several states, and it is by 2/3rds Majority that a treaty is ratified. It is essentially adding it to the Constitution.
Of course, back in the 90s, President Clinton had signed the Kyoto Treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate, knowing full well that it would NEVER be ratified. President W announced that we were no longer on board. He should have submitted it to the Senate to turn it down, rather than unilaterally disregarding it.
Any agreement that imposes future obligations on the United States internationally MUST be ratified that way. In fact, when the Senate approved the US getting into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it was very clear that any agreement binding the US would be subject to a Senate Ratification. Neither Kyoto or Paris were submitted because they stood no chance to become law. Oh, and maybe the Iran Agreement? The GOP shot itself in the nether reaches on that one. See? Establishment GOP, Democrat Party, no difference.
Kyoto didn't matter, it was a voluntary goal. Paris is different, even though "technically" not required, judging by the UN's actions, I suspect it is required.
Maybe Michael Bloomberg can fund the UN as well as wanting to fund the Paris deal. Well, good for him, we'll see if he really will put his money where his mouth is. I mean, that they need to understand that we will not be bullied around by a bunch of antidemocratic thugs. I would say that the President would probably be able to smooth over the UN with a threat of withholding funding.
Bonus:
All judges that have heard the case on the President's travel ban have violated their Oaths of office, by admitting that had anyone else issued the Executive Orders, they would have been upheld. Why isn't Congress acting? Where are the impeachment hearings? They are ruling, NOT on the law, but on FEEWINGS. So my question to you is this: When did PRESIDENT Trump ever mention a MUSLIM BAN, and where is it in the EO? I mean, many of the countries in the "ban" aren't even really functioning countries right now.
Syria? Chaos
Iran? World's largest state sponsor of terror
Sudan? Chaos
Libya? Chaos
Somalia? Chaos
Yemen? Chaos.
I can't even believe we are discussing them. The only country on the list that has a truly functioning system to track and process individuals for Visas, background checks, etc, is the world's largest state sponsor of terror! And if those bogus rulings stand, then Ocare should have been overturned, simply because we were told "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor", (and plan). Just sayin'.
And how does that look in light of the latest attacks in London? Still playing the same old game. I wonder who? I leave you with this clip from a short lived show on Fox News. The half hour news hour. https://youtu.be/Rd8cRvZZv44
Comments
Post a Comment