The Durban Climate Conference I reported on here and here has come to an end.
President Obama and the UN were unsuccessful in their attempt to soak America with a huge 'climate tax' and transfer billions to the UN while bypassing Congress, but the can was essentially kicked down the road until next year, and there was some progress towards that ultimate goal.
The Chinese and India, who quite correctly were holdouts on something that could have bankrupted their developing economies caved in finally to some degree, agreeing to take part in talks starting next year that could bind them for the first time to emission reductions. Obama's delegates representing the U.S. signed on to plan led by Europe to reach a 'global agreement' by 2015 that would put the climate tax in place and funnel money to the UN.
The impasse was between the US, which was arguing for the tax and Russia, China and India who were firmly against it.
EU Climate Czar Connie Hedegaard broke that impasse a by presenting a “roadmap” that calls for China and India to reduce emissions by 2020, but the details won't be solidified for now....they'll start fleshing that out at the next climate summit in Qatar.one year from today. As part of the agreement in Durban, Japan, Russia and Canada dropped their resistance to renewing their commitment to Kyoto treaty after its targets expire in 2012,although they won't face any formal penalties if they don't comply.
So essentially, the entire scheme is put off for one year. Keep in mind that while President Obama may have been defeated by then,he will still be in office, so this bears careful watching.
Especially since the dinosaur media isn't telling you a thing about this foul effort to pick your pockets to benefit a lot of well connected greenies, Third world shakedown artists and UN bureaucrats.
Keep in mind that the framework agreed on in Durban was specifically designed to avoid being a treaty = because those have to be voted on by the Senate,not just put through by executive order.
6 comments:
Put anything that is financial with the US taxpayers money needs to still be oked by the House of Representatives. There have been executive orders to hold monies and weapons from being delivered, but I dont' see how Constitutionally Obama could get away with this. Do you know any Constitutional scholars who say that an executive order that levies a tax, appropriates US taxpayer monies to a foreign government or organization is in anyway shape or form legal ?
President Obama has been using an executive order to fund Hamas for a couple of years now in the guise of 'humanitarian aid'. As I think you might remember IP,he also put into effect a trillion dollar time bomb on the American economy with his recent executive order on student loans. And their are other instances, like funding Libya, which was a violation of the War Powers act.
You're correct, all this is against the Constitution. Congress isn't challenging him IMO out of lack of courage, fear it will be perceived as 'racist' and the realization that there aren't the votes in the Senate.
Here's my next question...isn't there a Constitutional scholar who will challenge the executive orders. As we have seen recently SCOTUS did entertain such a lawsuit with the case about Jerusalem. You don't really need Congress. Actually I think Congress isn't challenging him out of political expediency:
1. They can claim that the bad policy is not from Congress but Obama, hence show that they are supporters of Israel but not really do anything that takes a real backbone
2. They do not want to weaken the use of executive orders since all hope that their party (or themselves)will be the one in the oval office and it is a way presidents go around the Constitution and Congress.
Mornin' IP. Unless we're talking about the legislative branch directly challenging the president, what you're talking about when you say 'challenge' is a law suit and when you say 'Constitutional scholar' you mean plaintiff, with legal representation.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV, but here is my sense of the matter:
You are talking about a suit based on an interpretation of the Constitution. The plaintiff would need to bring such a lawsuit into federal court.
The first question Obama's DOJ would likely raise is the one of standing.Is the plaintiff directly concerned? Have they suffered direct injury of loss? Several of the suits on Obama's birth certificate were tossed out of court for exactly this reason.
Second, the one of remedy,AKA what the heck are you asking the court to do? Your best bet would be to seek an injunction, which would of course be appealed if you manged to get one, but would at least buy some time.
Once you get past those hurdle, win or lose you're talking about a long drawn out process that might take minimum a couple of years before it gets to the SCOTUS - who have the option of refusing to hear the case and letting existing judgments stand.
During the process, if President Obama leaves office the judge involved will happily declare the matter moot - in other words, it doesn't matter anymore since the circumstances have changed - and move on to other business.
You only have to take a look at how long it took the Jerusalem case you mentioned to get to the SCOTUS to see how this works.
I don't think Congress is dropping the ball on this so much as letting the process work itself out. After all, they did vote into law the basis under which the Jerusalem case is going to the SCOTUS.
Regards,
Rob
The courts take decades. if Obama gets re-elected with a democratically-controlled Senate, he will do whatever he feels like doing.
I love the way you know nothing right wingers are willing to see the planet destroyed just for money.
That is just bat shit crazy.
Post a Comment