Stop Climate Change Treaty

Jed Gladstein explains today in the American Thinker that Power Derives from Lawful Authority, and not one supposes simply from the barrel of a gun. So, will the President's signature on the climate treaty therefore make that a legitimate treaty? One wonders.

On the one hand, the Supreme Court has acted as if the fact of Constitutionality is whatever they say it is. If that is the case, though, then the rule of law becomes a joke, and everything the rest of us do is at the sufferance of 9 unelected people wearing black robes. One thinks the founders could not have meant to play such a prank on posterity. So, looking the other way, the Constitution itself can not be violated by a treaty, since to change the Constitution requires approval of 2/3 of both houses, and 3/4 of the States, whereas a treaty only requires 2/3 of the Senate alone.

Except it can.

Article VI of the Constitution makes it clear that treaties are to be the higher law, notwithstanding whether or not they conflict with the Constitution.

Tilt.

Here is how Gladstein see it:

The President of the United States has no more legal right to sign a treaty that turns legislative, executive, and judicial functions of our national government over to the United Nations than he has to declare the United States an Islamic Republic and its people henceforward subject to Sharia. Nevertheless, that would be the effect of the proposed United Nations Climate Change Treaty awaiting Mr. Obama's signature in Copenhagen this coming December.

The proposed treaty authorizes the establishment of a "government" to transfer wealth from industrial nations to non-industrial nations in payment of a "climate debt" which, the treaty declares, the industrial nations owe on account of burning carbon-based fuels. The newly created international government is to have the authority to decide issues relating to carbon emissions in signatory nations, the power to levy what amounts to carbon taxes on signatory nations, and the power to enforce its levies without reference to the will of the people who live in the signatory nations.

I think Mr. Gladstein should change his statement to say that the President has no moral right to sign the treaty, but he has every legal right. I am surprised no one has ever tried it before. Just sign a treaty with a foreign power ceding sovereignty to them, resign as President, then take your rightful place in the foreign power as Dictator. Sounds simple. Look, the reasons this country revolted from England were many, but taxation without representation was certainly one of them. Obamacare simply won't die, despite a very public demonstration of its unpopularity. Cap and Tax remains on the agenda, and Democrats will no doubt try to sneak that one through by hook or crook as well. Out here, the public is at a boiling point. Could this be the last straw?

You have probably seen Christopher Monckton's impassioned plea that we stop this treaty from going through, but if you haven't, it is here. Go read the article, then watch Monckton's video. We must get on the phone to our Senators and be sure they understand that we will not allow this President to sign away our Sovereignty.