The Paris climate agreement is a treaty. We are not talking here about a bob-and-weave farce like the Iran nuclear deal. That arrangement, the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action,” was shrewdly packaged as an “unsigned understanding” — concurrently spun, depending on its apologists’ need of the moment, as a non-treaty (in order to evade the Constitution’s requirements), or as a binding international commitment (in order to intimidate the new American administration into retaining it).

The Paris climate agreement, to the contrary, is a formal international agreement. Indeed, backers claim this “Convention” entered into force — i.e., became internationally binding — upon the adoption of “instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession” by a mere 55 of the 197 parties.

Treaties are also known as agreements, protocols, covenants, convention, pact or “exchange of letters” among other terms are treaties so far as American Law is concerned. Obama violated the requirement for treaties to be approved by Congress.

Under international (not American) law, a treaty is a binding agreement entered into by actors subject to international law, such as sovereign states and international organizations.  International law allows the creation of treaties that can not be withdrawn from and does not recognize a countries constitution as a reason why they should be allowed to withdraw.  North Korea tried to withdraw from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights but the UN refused on the grounds that the treaty did not allow withdrawal.

Once a treaty places the US under international jurisdiction, it can become very hard to ever get out from under it.

The US Constitution defines treaties in a more restrictive legal sense than International Law defines them.

US law distinguishes treaties from “executive agreements”, congressional-executive agreements” and sole executive agreements.  Under International law, all 4 are treaties but US law requires special distinctions.  Primarily the method of approval as treaties require advice and consent by 2/3 of Senators present, while executive agreements are executed by the President acting alone.  Under US law, treaties do not have a privileged position over Acts of Congress and can be repealed or modified by an Act of Congress like any other law.  Our Supreme Court has ruled: treaty provisions that conflict with the US Constitution are null and void. International law does not agree with SCOTUS on that point. SCOYUS has ruled on when treaties require Senate approval and when the President can make “executive agreements” that are binding.  The use of treaties has declined and we now enter into “executive agreements at about 10:1 over treaties.  Only a Supreme Court decision keeps treaties from being able to abrogate the Bill of Rights.  Every effort to limit the power of treaties with a constitutional amendment, like the Bricker amendment, has failed to pass.

Treaties can loosely be compared to contracts as both parties assume obligations and liabilities for failure to meet the terms of the treaty.

Treaties require ratification by the Senate as they are binding and have costs if broken.  A treaty must be sent to the Senate for consideration and only after 2/3 of Senators present approve, can it be ratified by the President and becomes binding.  Over the years, the Presidents power has grown and as long as the President does not call it a treaty, a binding agreement can be executed with the stroke of the Presidents pen.  A future President can also revoke an executive agreement with a stroke of a pen. International law is not so forgiving.

Until the Senate ratifies a treaty, it has no meaning and is not binding.  By not calling it a treaty, this step is avoided.

The only limit to what a President can commit the country to is whether an agreement impairs constitutional rights.  International law does not see it that way and does not consider US law to be grounds for abrogating a treaty.  Maybe it’s time we revisit the proposed Bricker Amendment and it’s variations that would clearly state that no treaty could be made that conflicted with the Constitution, treaties can not be self-executing without enabling legislation passed by congress, prohibit treaties from giving Congress legislative powers not specified in the Constitution and limit the President’s power to enter into executive agreements with foreign powers.  In addition to the power to write and enforce Executive Orders our president controls the military all by himself. He can take over not only the Supreme court but also both houses of Congress as well as all of the state legislatures and governors.


The President has the power to set foreign policy but not commit us to actions that would be illegal if they did not involve a treaty with a foreign power.  This so-called “backdoor” legislating through international agreements can, should be, and is the job of the legislature to oversee. Obama got away without this oversight.
The President is not in it alone.  Obama’s agreement with the Paris agreement shows the danger of an unchecked President who was neatly controlled, unfortunately not by congress or the Free Press but by an election of an America First man.

The Paris agreement debacle is just one example of Progressives forcing America to do things that they could not get through US law.  By slipping damaging requirements into an international agreement, they bypass Congress and get what they want when they had no chance of doing it domestically. The election of Donald Trump as President is no small thing. America was sold-out by Obama.
The damage he did will take years to find and reverse. The Left-wing press is and has been on the wrong side.
President Trump has started to make America Great Again and pulling America out of a bad agreement in Paris was a great, great thing. America is fortunate that this under-estimated man stepped up but there is a lot of work yet to be done.

Views: 15