The Paris Accords

[Inor]

If it was a real treaty, you would 100 percent correct. It's not because it was never ratified in the Senate as required. Or did I miss that?

THAT is EXACTLY my point. It was a non-treaty that was being treated as a treaty. If Trump had run it through the Senate, which would have easily passed, he would have pulled us out of the agreement PLUS set a precedent for the next time we get a liberal president (and it will happen again). Doing it the way he did, he legitimized the way obama pushed it through without Senate approval and we do not have a leg to stand on when the next lib-tard gets in office and does something like this.

[Slippy]

Inor,

I think I understand where you are coming from, but my opinion is that since BHO'zo entered into this ridiculous "agreement" with the globalists, he did it unconstitutionally. Hence, it was never a "treaty".

So for Trump withdrawing from a "non-treaty" or withdrawing from an unconstitutional agreement with other nations is good Executive Management. Had it been a real treaty, then he would have had to get Congress' approval.

Very thought provoking thread, Inor.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Thursday.html

Maybe it is because I do not think Trump is a Conservative, but am I the only one that is bothered by the fact that Trump is unilaterally deciding to withdraw from the global warming hoax accord?



Do not get me wrong, I think withdrawing is the right decision. But it bothers me that a president now seems to have the individual power to make or break treaties for all of us. Doesn't the Senate still have something to say about it or are we now officially a dictatorship?

[hawgrider]

Trump campaigned on the promise he would do this so its another campaign promise kept.

[A Watchman]

My fellow constitutionalists, excellent discussion and points.

[dudeman]

I loved it when he said "I'm the president of Pittsburgh, not Paris".

[Camel923]

THAT is EXACTLY my point. It was a non-treaty that was being treated as a treaty. If Trump had run it through the Senate, which would have easily passed, he would have pulled us out of the agreement PLUS set a precedent for the next time we get a liberal president (and it will happen again). Doing it the way he did, he legitimized the way obama pushed it through without Senate approval and we do not have a leg to stand on when the next lib-tard gets in office and does something like this.

The initial agreement/treaty was an illegitimate act and there for has no legal standing from my prospective. To the require the Senate to pull out would set a president that would ligitimize the chief executive to make and enter treaties without the approval of the Senate. Hense another part of the Consitution nullified with a nod and a wink. Just like the federal income tax which any one with a fifth grade reading ability can clearly see as unconstitutional. Did you ever find evidence that such an act was ever actually ratified by the required number of states? It was short but instituted anyway and made unchallengeable because the IRS has its own court and laws different from anything else.

[Mister Mills]

I am OK with what Trump did, the Paris Accords were a travesty, and a rat trap. They were handcuffs and shackles to America, wrapped up in a disguise, but it looked good to some. I will bet that once you looked into it, it was really bad.

[Inor]

I knew when we elected him that I would be happy with some of the stuff he does, and I have been. I also knew I would be unhappy when he breaks liberal (which he has a tendency to do sometimes). But, he does not seem to break Marxist like the entire democrat party does now.