China: We’re not likely to agree to anything at Copenhagen
posted at 8:48 am on December 17, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The US and other Western nations continue to press for an agreement on AGW policy in Copenhagen, but they have gotten caught in a vise of naked self-interests. Developing nations want tens of billions of dollars in aid as well as ruinous restrictions on carbon-dioxide emissions as a means to even the economic score. On the other hand, China — the world’s largest industrial emitter of CO2 — threw cold water on the entire process, calling an agreement on anything unlikely:
Seeking to unblock an impasse in climate talks, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States would only commit to building the fund if nations gathered here for global climate talks produce an international accord that includes emission reduction commitments from both developed and major developing countries; financial and technological assistance for poor countries; and a way to independently verify the cuts all nations made.
“We’re running out of time,” Clinton said at a news conference. “Without the accord, the opportunity to mobilize significant resources to assist developing countries with mitigation and adaptation will be lost.”
Clinton warned that China — which has resisted attempts for international verification of emission cuts and told officials here before Clinton spoke that a global pact seems unlikely — must agree to monitoring if a deal is to reached. An international agreement, Clinton said, would be impossible “in the absence of transparency from the second biggest emitter” in the world, which is China.
China told participants earlier Wednesday that it cannot envision reaching an immediate, operational accord out of the negotiations here, according to an official involved in the talks. Another source said Chinese officials are now seeking a two-page agreement. The source added that it is unclear what specifics such an agreement might contain, although “you can get a lot into two pages.”
In the absence of a comprehensive pact, Clinton said, the United States would take its long-term financial pledge off the table. She did not specify how much the U.S. would contribute to the fund if a substantive agreement was reached. The European Union has also committed to building a longterm, $100 billion fund, while Japan has committed $15 billion in short-term funding to poor countries over the next three years if an agreement is reached.
You can get a lot into two pages? Not in international agreements. That would represent little more than a mission statement, an agreement on goals rather than any legal language on emissions and processes to implement them.
Think of the complexity of regulating a naturally-occurring gas that humans exhale every second. It would take a massive bureaucracy just to handle the verification of compliance. The table of contents for that portion of a treaty would take more than two pages.
Without China on board on an operational agreement, Copenhagen is useless. The US Senate will not reverse itself to ratify an agreement that excludes China or India. Without China and the US, the rest of the world may self-flagellate over their carbon dioxide, but given the exposure of the science as biased and unreliable, not too many of them will for very long. China may just put Copenhagen, and the AGW hysteria, out of its misery — and out of ours.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Fluffy words. That’s what’s going to come out. Fluffy words. Either that, or Obama will go back on his negotiating position (that China needs to be treated as 21st century China, not 19th century China).
Either way, snowball’s chance in hell that anything good comes out of this.
unclesmrgol on December 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM
shocked! simply shocked at the audacity of China! Who could have predicted this! Wowsers!
gatorboy on December 17, 2009 at 8:51 AM
What moron in the Ogabe administration thought it would be a great idea to spend $100 billion taxpayer dollars on other nations during these crushing economic times?
I feel dirty just for saying it, but….Thank You China.
Bishop on December 17, 2009 at 8:52 AM
You had it right with Copenhagen is useless. The 2 pages China wanted concerned it’s one child world wide policy. Our dear leader has absolutely no leverage with China. What more can he agree to give them. They own us now.
Kissmygrits on December 17, 2009 at 8:53 AM
well, this will give dear leader more time to talk about himself when he gets there
cmsinaz on December 17, 2009 at 8:53 AM
Wow, we need him in congress.
Disturb the Universe on December 17, 2009 at 8:53 AM
What a sorry state we’ve been put in that we rely on China to scuttle the Copenhagen talks and to finance our nation.
Hoax and Chains.
TXUS on December 17, 2009 at 8:57 AM
Lack of agreement from China or India didn’t prevent the conclusion of Kyoto.
Barry cannot come back from Copenhagen back empty-handed – if he has to agree something that commits only the US to economic self-destruction, then, by gosh, that’s a sacrifice that he’s willing to make.
For humanity.
Track-A-'Crat on December 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Who needs the Senate? Copenhagen may be dead, but the EPA can still destroy our economy for good by regulating CO2.
Doughboy on December 17, 2009 at 8:58 AM
Pelosi, it is China and India which have been “saving the world” for the last decade. Russia has been positive recently.
burt on December 17, 2009 at 8:59 AM
It’s so bad… I might even possibly consider getting a “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for McCain” bumper-sticker.
mankai on December 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM
This calls for a Summit.
Spider79 on December 17, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Let them do it. When I visit Sturgis this year I am going to eat so many burritos, drink so much beer, and rev the engine so hard that the rear-end methane, exhaust pipe carbon monoxide and Co2 laden belches will more than make up for what the EPA tries to regulate.
Bishop on December 17, 2009 at 9:01 AM
If Obama actually shows up in Copenhagen, I have a feeling he’s going to give away the farm (with you and me still on it) to enhance his international socialist stature.
They loved Chavez, so the Bamster has a hard act to follow.
petefrt on December 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM
This summit is just like like the current Administration. It seems like its been going on forever, and is nothing but a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
kingsjester on December 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Twilight zone: From HA stories I read today, the two biggest immediate threats to freedom and liberty in the USA (pushed by the Administration and leaders in Congress) are being derailed by the SEIU/AFL-CIO (federal health care takeover) and Communist China (one-world global warming oversight)….
chaswv on December 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM
We’ll see how that plays out. I don’t think Congress will just sit back and let the EPA walk all over them. The stage is set for a battle between Obama and the democrats in Congress.
In the end, if the republicans do take back control and the presidency … one of the first orders of business should be to neuter many of these federal agencies that have become waaaaaaay too powerful.
darwin on December 17, 2009 at 9:03 AM
While I am in full agreement with you about the EPA at least we can litigate their findings in court and tie it up for years.
chemman on December 17, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Defund the EPA before it’s too late. How can you call CO2 a poison when every warm-blooded creature on the planet exhales it as a byproduct and all plant life needs it to grow?
Thnk about that for a second. How would you enforce anything like what they are planning on doing? A CO2 detector on every single home, buisness and vehicle? Woudl the EPA just measure random samples of air and massage the numbers to “hide the decline” if it ever actually worked? What would be the incentive for the EPA or the Feds to report an actual decline in CO2 if they are allowed to collect fines? This is utter madness and an out-of-control government.
Mord on December 17, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark..
the_nile on December 17, 2009 at 9:04 AM
If Obama signs this Friday people should called republican house officials to start impeachment immediately for Treason!!!!
He is out of his jurisdiction to sign such a document without 2/3 of senate to approve! Therefore his actions will be treason and subject to impeachment under Article III in the constitution.
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 9:04 AM
It’s pretty bad when China wants to save the U.S. economy more than our pResident does.
cntrlfrk on December 17, 2009 at 9:06 AM
I wouldn’t hold my breath on that idea. The Repubs could have done some of that during Bush II and instead expanded government.
chemman on December 17, 2009 at 9:06 AM
This is not a climate conference, but rather a conference on how to tax developed nations and give the money to the dictators of the undeveloped nations who will put in their armies and personal Swiss bank accounts.
albill on December 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Don’t forget Russia’s help in releasing the new data showing how the East Anglia studies rigged the temperature data by ignoring numbers from areas that haven’t seen major population growth over the past 75-100 years. It’s Russia’s vast oil reserves and the $$$ the country can derive from that which motivated them to sabotage the climate control fanatics at just the right moment before Copenhagen, in the same way China is going to kill an agreement because it doesn’t want to see its industrial economic growth hamstrung.
jon1979 on December 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM
Good was never on the agenda.
burt on December 17, 2009 at 9:09 AM
The EPA’s power will be temporary if they try to regulate CO2 under the “command and control” platform form floated recently by O and Co. Good R gains in 2010 will stop what the EPA has in store, if they do in the first place.
Obama is giving his oppos political holes large to not only sink the Dems in 2010 but himself in 2012 with his nonsense. His future still depends upon the economy and what it looks like in about 24 mos. More regulation means decreased econ. activity plain and simple. Why else do you think that Obama has doubled down on his “inherited” meme since inauguration day? Because if his policies are ever tied to him (and they will eventually) then he’s sunk and he knows it.
volnation on December 17, 2009 at 9:09 AM
I believe he can sign a working document. An official treaty needs to be ratified by 2/3 of the senate before it becomes law. They might be able to get 61 or 62 votes for C*ap and Tax in the Senate but 67 is an uncrossable chasm.
chemman on December 17, 2009 at 9:09 AM
This isn’t madness, THIS IS WASHINGTON!!
txaggie on December 17, 2009 at 9:11 AM
The Chinese are doing exactly what we should be doing. Looking after it’s own interests.
TXUS on December 17, 2009 at 9:11 AM
It is truly a topsy turvy world we live in when it is Russia and China saving us from this madness.
Kafir on December 17, 2009 at 9:12 AM
The demorats are still going to make their play in Copenhagen, on our dime of course:
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2009/12/this-is-their-hajj.html
Bishop on December 17, 2009 at 9:12 AM
I was thinking more about the democrats. They don’t like having their toes stepped on.
darwin on December 17, 2009 at 9:13 AM
txaggie on December 17, 2009 at 9:11 AM
LOL…300 reference?
Mord on December 17, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Who knew this would turn out to be a complete farce and waste of time, getting all these elitist private jet emission spewing folks together to come to an agreement on climate change. pfff. Everyone except them?
You’re right. But what are the odds of that happening?
scalleywag on December 17, 2009 at 9:13 AM
Obama has already talked about how he could get across this chasm. He won’t call it a treaty and instead make a new law that is precisely what the treaty says and submit that to Congress. If he does that than normal rules apply. I highly doubt the Maine Sisters would say no to this.
txaggie on December 17, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Gosh, this is exactly why the Senate refused to even consider ratifying the Kyoto agreement 10 years ago when Hillary’s husband was President, and why the Bush Administration didn’t ask it to.
Yet another example of the Obama Administration essentially adopting the Bush polices that Democrats railed against for 8 years.
rockmom on December 17, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Using this precedent Hillary, can we take the Health Care bill off the table? There’s certainly nothing comprehensive in the bill, accept the understanding that it’s long term—-or should that be long terminal?
Rovin on December 17, 2009 at 9:15 AM
Good for China!
Alden Pyle on December 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Clinton signed Kyoto. Obama will sign Copenhagen. The senate will again not agree.
burt on December 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM
That’s because Bush and his cronies in Congress were Big Gov’t socialists who just happened to love the military. So you gave them a pass. It’s just so happens that the Republicans set the stage for the Democrat socialist takeover. All the Dems had to do was take the reigns and continue on.
uknowmorethanme on December 17, 2009 at 9:16 AM
Jeebus F’in’ Christmas, I am much more in favor of the Communist China’s government than the democratically elected USA government.
How the H E double-hockey-stick did that happen?
rbj on December 17, 2009 at 9:18 AM
ONLY if it is for protocol and NOT any form of commitment. Obama’s intentions for signing is COMMITTMENT and BINDING the US to this treaty. There is a difference unlike Clinton signing Kyoto as protocol in 98.
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 9:19 AM
At the top of the radio news spot,Hillary
is ready to dump some American greenbacks
on the table as soon as the treaty is signed!!
canopfor on December 17, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Maybe Sean Penn can go to China and convince them to join the west in a suicide pact …
darwin on December 17, 2009 at 9:22 AM
Anyone know why Pelousy was in such a hurry to get over to Copenhagen? A two for one special this week on Botox shots perhaps.
GnuBreed on December 17, 2009 at 9:22 AM
She’s going too?
darwin on December 17, 2009 at 9:23 AM
Obama can’t be impeached for signing anything. Obama could sign a treaty tomorrow giving all of our money and land to China (thanks to the stimulus and all of the other junk this would be a moot point), but it wouldn’t be law until 2/3 of the Senate approved of it. We never approved of the treaty Wilson signed after WWI and we also didn’t approve the Kyoto Protocol that Bill Clinton signed.
This impeachment rhetoric needs to calm down. If you were to go on any lefty blog 8 years ago you would find this same argument but with Bush as the bad guy. I can’t think of one Obama policy that I approve of 100% and most of his decisions I abhor, but elections have consequences. He won and he gets to make the agenda. We lost, but that doesn’t mean we have to accept his agenda. We must fight tooth and nail against all of his policies that would curtail our individual freedoms. I am not advocating that we be quiet, rather I want us to be so loud that people are forced to listen to reason. I do believe we lost a battle on election day, but as any good historian knows, it takes more than a single battle to win a war.
txaggie on December 17, 2009 at 9:26 AM
China, can you please loan us some money so we can give it to other countries?
WashJeff on December 17, 2009 at 9:26 AM
Don’t give the Chinese too many props. They are looking out for their own investments in the US. We owe them close to a trillion dollars and they know what the cap and trade, CO2 regs, and Copenhagen accords would do to our already busted economy. They are simply saving us from ourselves, but are the beneficiaries if we ever start to pay back our debt.
hip shot on December 17, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Go…Chinese communists?
Strange times, these.
Good Lt on December 17, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Tell them to go to hell. Next issue.
BuckeyeSam on December 17, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Thanks, Burt – my thinking speed didn’t quite catch up to my typing speed on that comment…
Track-A-'Crat on December 17, 2009 at 9:28 AM
Frankly, this is now sounding more like a negotiation on setting a World Industrial Plan with climate change as a pretext. More or less locking in industrial output and market share globally. Given the the two largest up and coming industrial countries, China and India, are trying to opt out, it seems pointless if at least the underlying pretext has no validity. It seems that the lackeys at the UN thought they could sucker them in, but these folks are no fools.
I keep trying to imagine what happens as 2nd and 3rd world countries realize that they have been dupped or mislead or just plain negotiated badly. We are talking trade wars, the likes of which have not occurred in over a century, and that means quite possibly real wars as well. Using a phony pretext, like AGW, will only make this possible outcome even more likely.
J_Crater on December 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM
OT: must read from Jonah Goldberg at NRO.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZjFiNjc5YjljNGIyZDU1NDliMTYwZTY1ZDM5NTJjMGI=
BuckeyeSam on December 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Maybe China doesn’t want to dump cash on poor countries,
that will suffer from Global Warming scam!!
———————————————————–
Page 122, Item 17 is quite troubling.
15. [Developed country Parties [shall][should] provide support to developing country Parties, particularly those specified in Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the Convention, in order to allow developing country Parties to address issues related to social and environmental development, economic diversification, risk assessment, modelling and insurance to prevent the adverse effects of the spillover effects.] Alternative to paragraph 15:
[In the implementation of paragraphs 11 (c)11 and 11 (d)12 above (159.1 and 159.2 in FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1) , through the provision of financial resources, including for access, development and transfer of technology, at agreed full incremental costs in accordance with Article 4.3 of the Convention;
Recognizing that there are ways and means to reduce or avoid such impacts through careful and informed selection of policies and measures, to evaluate the effectiveness of existing tools, and to consider new ones, in order to assist developing country Parties in addressing these impacts.]
16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should] be addressed by proper economic, social and environmental actions, including promoting and supporting economic diversification and the development and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developing country Parties.]
Alternative to paragraph 16:
[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed by various means, including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling economic diversification, funding, insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, such as cleaner fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storage technologies.]
—————————–
17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures
canopfor on December 17, 2009 at 9:32 AM
Go…Chinese communists?
Strange times, these.
Good Lt on December 17, 2009 at 9:27 AM
Good Lt: The Ruskies have wised up,and now China!!:)
canopfor on December 17, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Actually you’re wrong you might want to educate yourself on what can and can’t be done. If he signs this he is in complete violation of his powers per the constitution! Obama has NO treaty power. There is a difference per our constitution btwn Treaties and Agreements. We have Con Trumps.
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Considering the mood of the country right now, that might be an ace they don’t want to play, especially with midterms just around the corner.
a capella on December 17, 2009 at 9:35 AM
See you there.
Johan Klaus on December 17, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Um, no. Presidents can sign any treaty they want. They just do not go into effect without 2/3 of the Senate approving.
Article II, section 2
“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ”
Signing an agreement/treaty does not make the treaty.
rbj on December 17, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Kiss me…
BPD on December 17, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Darwin, see Bishop’s post at 9:12am for the link. Pelousy & 29 other reps (mostly dims) are headed that way.
GnuBreed on December 17, 2009 at 9:45 AM
I’ll bet Democrats emit more CO2 than Republicans.
exhelodrvr on December 17, 2009 at 9:47 AM
I need to be educated? I know I can never be as much of a genius like yourself, but I can read…maybe.
I know the source I am going to give is old and obscure to most people but it is called the Constitution of the United States. In Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 it states “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur” Historically, this has meant that the President, as commander in chief, signs a treaty of some form overseas. He then presents the treaty to the Senate for ratification. If 2/3 of the Senate agree then the treaty becomes law in the US. If it is not ratified the treaty is either renegotiated or shelved.
txaggie on December 17, 2009 at 9:48 AM
UHM, no he can’t just sign it without some form of commitment from senate which he has NONE! Again, there is a difference per the constitution of Treaties and Agreements. He has already been told this by senate not to sign anything. What he is signing is a BINDING AGREEMENT which he CAN’T sign without senate approval!
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 9:49 AM
I’m not gonna lie, I didn’t think we could count on China to get us out of this boondoggle. I’m not going to complain though.
t.ferg on December 17, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Russia’s not buying it either — although they’ll be happy to sell carbon credits based on their 1992 emissions level. They’ve always been magnanimous that way.
Nichevo on December 17, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Wow! China’s preventing the shakedown of the U.S.???!!! Go China! Never thought I’d say that!
4shoes on December 17, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Yes he can. Signing does not mean that it will go into effect. Al Gore signed Kyoto on behalf of Clinton, but it got nowhere in the Senate and thus was not enacted. Wilson signed the Treaty of Versailles, but the Senate rejected it and thus it went nowhere.
Signing does not equal enactment under the US Constitution. It is merely a ceremonial thing. Heck, McArthur signed Japan’s surrender, but it took until 1951 for the US Senate to ratify the treaty.
rbj on December 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM
I must not be reading the same document you are. I don’t see anything here about agreements. The only thing listed are treaties which I understood to be agreements between nations to either do something or stop doing something. Can you tell me where in the Constitution it differentiates between agreement and treaty?
txaggie on December 17, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Thanks! I see they’re not very worried about CO2 emissions. Oh well … those silly politicians!
darwin on December 17, 2009 at 10:00 AM
Next items on their agenda:
1. Find Bigfoot.
2. Save the Loch Ness Monster
And, last but not least…
Send a global mission to the moon for real this time. If America had really gone to the moon back in the sixties, we could have solved world hunger, because as anyone remotely educated knows…the moon is made of cheese.
Saltysam on December 17, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Egads, that’s twice in two days that a communist country has spoken the truth and helped to scuttle this AGW nonsense.
MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2009 at 10:01 AM
In my wildest nightmares I never dreamed that one day the International Workers Party would establish a global command and control economy. That the great leaders would enter into negotiations among themselves over how prosperous each leader would be within their utopia, only to have the entire house of cards collapse when the leaders of China insisted that they be the most prosperous of all of the great leaders of the world.
Skandia Recluse on December 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM
So I guess my charting of political ideology on a linear scale is wrong, it is circular and “both sides” do eventually meet.
WashJeff on December 17, 2009 at 10:04 AM
Inner contradictions of the hard left are bringing it down.
Like the Hindenberg!
We’re witnessing a self-inflicted overthrow of their wretched ideology. And it’s all downhill from here, what with the baby boom reaching — dare I say without irony — “maturity”.
jeff_from_mpls on December 17, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Who is now running Obama’s campaign? This guy is stupid, STUPID for going to a place, giving a speech, and nothing will be done…this is worse then McCain suspending his campaign to fix the economic problems.
But I say, go Obama, go and make a fool of yourself, be a pawn, China and Russia will see your weakness. They will see you begging for a crumb of respect. They will take note, they will analyze, and they will attack where you are weakest. Just like JFK, they have your number, you are powerless.
They own you economically, militarily (look at your dems scurrying from you), and now politically. They have you showing up at a doomed international circus, and you are the clown.
In fact here he is arriving with his entourage at the conference.
right2bright on December 17, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Wow! China’s preventing the shakedown of the U.S.???!!! Go China! Never thought I’d say that!
4shoes on December 17, 2009 at 9:56 AM
4shoes: I just heard Hillary,on talk radio *am,that she
is ready to pledge 100 Billion a year to the poor
countries!*(top of the hour news spot).
I can see why China isn’t thrilled about the Global
Warming scam!:)
canopfor on December 17, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Everything the chosen one touches turns to crap.
What’s the opposite of the Midas touch?
jeff_from_mpls on December 17, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Clarification of a clause in the Constitution of the United States is in order here. Article VI, clause 2 declares that “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” It is the last clause that is misunderstood, even by attorneys. “… Constitution or Laws of any State …” refers to the Constitutions of the several states, NOT the Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers were much too well informed to allow the state Constitutions to alter the United States Constitution. That would have been self defeating. The truth of the matter is that neither treaties nor state laws can supersede or alter the Constitution of the United States. Our national document is etched in stone. It is unfortunate that most Congress Persons do not read stone.
The constitution doesn not give pre-authorization for the president to sign treaties then take them back and present it to senate. Unfortunately for you Obama was just prewarned of this by senate regarding this treaty. This is the same as usurping of legislative powers presidents have used with Executive orders.
Unfortunately, the Constitution defines presidential powers very generally; and nowhere does it define, much less limit, the power of a president to rule by executive order–except by reference to that general language and the larger structure and function of the Constitution. The issue is especially acute when presidents use executive orders to legislate, for then they usurp the powers of Congress or the states, raising fundamental concerns about the separation and division of powers. The problem of presidential usurpation of legislative power has been with us from the beginning, but it has grown exponentially with the expansion of government in the 20th century. In enacting program after program, Congress has delegated more and more power to the executive branch. Thus, Congress has not only failed to check but has actually abetted the expansion of presidential power. And the courts have been all but absent in restraining presidential lawmaking. Nevertheless, the courts have acted in two cases–in 1952 and 1996–laying down the principles of the matter; the nation’s governors forced President Clinton to rewrite a federalism executive order; and now there are two proposals in Congress that seek to limit presidential lawmaking. Those developments offered hope that constitutional limits–and the separation and division of powers, in particular–may eventually be restored.
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 10:08 AM
If the Anointed One were sensible, he would not go to the madhouse in Copenhagen, but he is not sensible. He probably thinks if He goes, He will create order out of chaos and the face of the deep.
Dhuka on December 17, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Thread winner.
Mike Honcho on December 17, 2009 at 10:25 AM
The capacity of the United States to enter into agreements with other nations is not exhausted in the treaty-making power. The Constitution recognizes a distinction between “treaties” and “agreements” or “compacts”. The differences, which once may have been clearer, have been seriously blurred in practice within recent decades. Once a stepchild in the family in which treaties were the preferred offspring, the executive agreement has surpassed in number and perhaps in international influence the treaty formally signed, submitted for ratification to the Senate, and proclaimed upon ratification.
Certainly, executive agreements entered into solely on the authority of the President’s constitutional powers are not the law of the land because of the language of the supremacy clause, and the absence of any congressional participation denies them the political requirements they may well need to attain this position.
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 10:26 AM
And that idiot clinton wants us to give 100 billion A YEAR to an international fund for a problem that might not even exist.
Where the funking chicken is this 100 billion a YEAR going to come from??
sonofdy on December 17, 2009 at 10:27 AM
中国加油！
(“Go China!”, ironically it literally means “China, more oil!”)
DarkCurrent on December 17, 2009 at 10:29 AM
Secretary of State Clinton is spending time on this? I didn’t care about this UN-sponsored festival of hot air, mostly because these things never end in any agreement. If low-level government officials want to hang out at a conference hall in Denmark and listen to endless speeches, that’s harmless enough.
But doesn’t the Secretary of State have better things to do? Perhaps she could help organize a conference about Iran’s steady progress toward a nuclear medium-range ICBM capability? When real problems are just begging for attention, it makes this Copenhagen nonsense look even more foolish.
blueguitarbob on December 17, 2009 at 10:33 AM
txaggie has the right of it. With every treaty, either the President or his or her duly appointed agent(s) signs the treaty, and it is then presented by the President to the Senate for ratification. The President doesn’t have to secure the approval of the Senate before signing the treaty, but is stupid not to at least gauge their feelings with regard to the treaty before signing; a failure to do so increases the probability that the treaty won’t be ratified.
txaggie said nothing about state constitutions or the position of the treaty in law relative to the Constitution or our federal laws — only what the United States Constitution says about ratification.
unclesmrgol on December 17, 2009 at 10:40 AM
You want the EPA to attempt to regulate CO2 Emissions. EPA Regulations can be challenged in court and if the Regulation has no scientific basis the court can order the EPA to cease and desist.
For the first time, the Doctrine of Man-caused Climate Change will be put on trial.
Holger on December 17, 2009 at 11:02 AM
China has the reasonable position.
Huh? Twilight Zone episode or something.
barnone on December 17, 2009 at 11:04 AM
I beg to differ. Once The Unprecedented arrives in Hopenchangen, I foresee that a substantial number of the delegates will agree that he is an arrogant and self-absorbed ass.
ya2daup on December 17, 2009 at 11:12 AM
There’s nothing praiseworthy in what China’s doing.
China is balking at having the emissions cuts they’d agree to independently verified. Why? Because they have absolutely no intention of meeting whatever “goals” are established at Copenhagen.
Their sole interest in all of this nonsense is to simply play along in the hopes that the US is actually stupid enough to drive a dagger through the heart of its own economy.
They – along with Russia and the Muslims – must have a quite laugh behind closed doors at the utter, insane stupidity of Westerners.
rvastar on December 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM
How bad crazy has it gotten in Washington? We’re looking to the Russians and Chinese for sanity, and cheering them on!
Nice. Real nice.
The Chinese have no illusions – so far it seems like they’ve been playing at this just to see how far the industrialized west has sunk into insanity. Probably seems they’ve gotten a fair gauge, at this point. Anyone that thinks they were going to go along with the West’s mutual suicide pact is delusional. They’ve probably gotten to the point it’s really starting to worry them, so they aren’t playing any longer. It was all fine when it looked like they might be able to get the socialists running the capitalist ships of state to fork over big buck to modernize Chinese industry for them (if you’ll note, their ‘reduction’ pledges look a lot like the ‘gains’ that would be realized from upgraded infrastructure), with a side play of goading on the perpetual kleptocrats of the third world to clamor for a cut of the loot.
But step up and knowingly put an economic 44 magnum to their own temples – fat chance.
India’s part in this is similar – with some nasty side lights to go along with the rest of the show. Their ‘railroad’ guy is the one with his hand on the throttle of the engine for this little clown ride – and if they could line up to get free outside financing, along with something to take out international competition for their developing industrial base, bonus!
I’m actually pretty amused to see the gaggle of self serving politicos following this boondoggle to their Cloward-Piven heart’s desire. Because when, and if, a great number of the American public finally do realize what a shafting these people have tried to do to them, hopefully it will finally break the logjam, and sweep the vast majority of these pompous peacocks into the gutter, and down the sewer of history, where they truly belong.
Al Gore in a SuperMax would be the cherry on top.
Wind Rider on December 17, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Then obviously you as well don’t understand the treaty, agreements or compacts claification of Aticle III. Let’s try by just giving you a sentence out of what I wrote….
“The truth of the matter is that neither treaties nor state laws can supersede or alter the Constitution of the United States. Our national document is etched in stone. It is unfortunate that most Congress Persons do not read stone.”
Thanks for playing!
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Blizzard Dumps Snow on Copenhagen as Leaders Battle Warming…
Geochelone on December 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Actually let me make it more simple “The president cannot just go around the world signing treaties or executive agreements at his whim and will” He must have senate oversight before ratification. It does not need to be ratified first. Now I will agree that our representatives have ceded power over to the executive branch which they have no authority to do either. There is a reason our founders created the checks and balances btwn branches. It was originally done by a 3 headed eagel which represented the branches and the wings represented the balance.
xler8bmw on December 17, 2009 at 11:38 AM
Boy what do these Scandanavian countries have against our President? Are they racist? First Oslo turns down the Chicago Olympics, a high priority for Mr. Obama. Then Copenhagen turns down a capntax treaty which Obama was salivating over. Well, I’m sure when Mr. Obama gets there tomorrow, a light will shine down on the delegates and they will hear a heavenly voice declare, ‘This is my President, Listen to him!’
and all the countries will put aside their ‘naked self interest’, and will sing kumbaya, the unicorns and rainbows will appear, the waters will cease to rise, and a new unanimous treaty will be signed with China and India on board as well. And Obama will prove all those mockers wrong, as he will win his validation for receiving the Nobel Prize.
OR NOT.
eaglewingz08 on December 17, 2009 at 11:46 AM
And as Obama and the dims continue on this economy-destroying path, China is busy gobbling up as much oil and natural gas reserves as they can, on OUR doorstep:
As Democrats Dither – China Gobbles Up Oil & Gas Reserves In Canada & Gulf of Mexico
mrt721 on December 17, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Why would they really? They are trying to keep a lid on their own economy. Why would they get all stupid and sign on to the protocols and restrictions being discussed by the goonies at the summit.
What people may not appreciate is the Chinese are heavily invested in solar and alternative energy. They are building the largest wind farm in the world and within their stock market are some of the best run solar companies in the world.
Honestly I wish we were as practical as they are. They know how to thumb their noses at political correctness.
FireBlogger on December 17, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »