(Freedom.news) For a constitutional scholar and long-serving U.S. senator, President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, respectively, have repeatedly demonstrated they don’t have much respect for our founding document or the institutions of government it created.
Both demonstrated as much when negotiating the Iran nuclear deal, opting to classify it as an “executive agreement” rather than a treaty (which would require a two-thirds majority to ratify and place into effect), even though such arms control agreements are generally done as treaties, according to the Congressional Research Service.
And now the pair have teamed up to make a similar end-run around the Legislative Branch, a move planned well in advance, regarding the Paris climate agreement recently inked.
As reported by the Washington Examiner, the agreement did not contain any enforcement provisions because that would have required the ascent of the people, via their congressional representatives.
“It doesn’t have mandatory targets for reduction and it doesn’t have an enforcement, compliance mechanism,” Kerry said on “Fox News Sunday.”
That’s because he believes Congress would not have supported them.
The WE further noted:
Binding legal requirements would have made the Paris agreement a treaty, requiring approval from two-thirds of the Senate. Because no climate change measure could close to the high bar in the chamber, the Paris deal was written to avoid it.
Writing in Slate, international correspondent Joshua Keating lamented this form of agreement, arguing – correctly, in our view – that it sets a bad precedent because it empowers the Executive Branch with authority the framers reserved for the Legislative Branch:
…[T]he way the deal was orchestrated sets a precedent for expanded executive power that should concern even those who support this president and this deal. … [T]his new category of agreement, which seems to have more political and legal authority than one the president negotiates alone, stacks the deck heavily in the White House’s favor. It seems likely that future administrations, faced with agreements on major issues of war and peace, will seek to replicate the model.
What should also anger Americans – regardless of their political bent – is that deal-making in this way doesn’t just cut out Congress, it cuts the American people out of the process as well. Obama’s disdain for the GOP-controlled Legislative Branch notwithstanding, Congress is the voice of the people; representatives are elected to serve the public who sent them there. So cutting Congress out of its constitutionally mandated agreement approval process isn’t just a spiteful thing to do, it means that We the People don’t get a say over issues that will have a direct impact on us – the Iran deal, on our national security, and the Paris climate agreement on our wallets.
And as you can see, that is precisely what Obama and Kerry intended to do. In fact, they based their entire strategy on the fact that We the People would never get a say in either accord.
That’s not at all what the founders intended.
- Click here to ‘like’ Freedom.news on Facebook and have access to additional content!
See also:
