In a striking sign of contempt for the Constitution, the White House Tuesday said the right of Congress to weigh in on an international agreement should be judged by the views lawmakers have on the issue.
This is approximately like saying, You get to vote if you vote the way I want. Chilling, right? But that’s the mentality we’re dealing with here.
The White House’s, uh, groundbreaking interpretation of the Constitution was included in an exchange between Shannon Bream of Fox News and White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest about the right of the Senate to consider an international climate deal that United States is negotiating.
According to The Hill, Earnest’s comments are “directed at lawmakers such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who have all insisted that the international agreement the UN is working on is a treaty and cannot be enforced without Senate approval.”
The topic arose because the White House Tuesday had pledged to cut U.S. emissions 26-28 percent by 2025 from 2005 levels as part of the emerging pact.
BREAM: And as a follow to that, not surprising, there is pushback from the Hill from a number of leaders there who say this represents yet another agreement that Congress should be involved with. They feel like they should have a voice in any agreement of this nature on the international scale. How do you respond to them?
MR. EARNEST: Well, these are individuals who — many of whom, at least, deny the fact that climate change even exists. So I’m not sure they would be in the best position to decide whether or not a climate change agreement is one that is worth entering into.
The fact is, the kind of an agreement that the President succeeded in striking with China and is implementing here in the United States is one that will have a positive impact on carbon pollution, will have a positive impact on trying to make the air safer for Americans here in this country, and will have a positive impact on our economy. And that’s why the President is pursuing this so aggressively. And we certainly would welcome any kind of support that we could get from Congress on that measure.
Q But content aside, is this the kind of agreement that Congress should have an ability to sign off on?
MR. EARNEST: Well, again, I think it’s hard to take seriously from some members of Congress who deny the fact that climate change exists that they should have some opportunity to render judgment about a climate change agreement.
For the edification of the White House, this is the Treaty Clause, contained in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:
He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur and have reasonable opinions on the matter.
Josh was right! Wait a second, that’s the White House version of the clause. Here’s the what the Founders wrote:
He (the president) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
So there’s actually no pre-ordained outcome, no test of their views. BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE ENTIRELY CONTRARY TO THE WHOLE POINT OF THE REPUBLIC.
Some people, though don’t get the point. Or they do, but it’s highly inconvenient.