http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2016/04/paris-agreement-signing-earth-day
By presidental treaty the US is officially obligating itself to the Paris Accord today. On the condition that a sufficient number of other nations do the same in the coming weeks the treaty will go in full effect. Once in effect it will be locked in through the first term of the next president.
>>40086
There is no such thing as a "presidential treaty". The Constitution of the US states that only The US Senate has the specific power to ratify all treaties. Obviously there is no way Mitch McConnell as head of the US Senate right now is ever going to bring this up, much less let it pass, so I can understand why Obama is doing what he's doing, but it isn't legally binding. When whomever the next president is comes in they can just overturn whatever Obama did here with their own executive order, or, The SCOTUS can find it unconstitutional before then (if they didn't tie 4-4 that is).
>>40112
>In order to "join" the agreement, national governments have to show the United Nations the piece of domestic paperwork—a law, executive order, or some other legal document—in which the government consents to be bound by the terms of the agreement.
>Obama is expected to join using an executive agreement, which will allow him to avoid sending the deal to Congress. (Executive agreements account for the vast majority of US foreign commitments.)
>He's able to do this because the United States says it can fulfill its Paris promises without any changes to domestic laws; instead, the Obama administration is holding up its end of the bargain by imposing new EPA regulations on emissions from power plants.
>Unlike a treaty, an executive agreement does not require ratification by the Senate. It's not bulletproof; a future president could unilaterally abandon the deal. But for Obama, there's a clear incentive for pushing to reach those 55 countries and the 55 percent thresholds as quickly as possible: Once the agreement goes into force, it requires a four-year waiting period before a country can withdraw.
>In other words, in the event that either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump—both vociferous climate change deniers—succeeds Obama in the White House, they wouldn't be able to back out of the agreement until their (*shudder*) second term.
Oh they're not changing law, they're just changing how and what the EPA regulates. It's completely different.
I really hate how pleased the author of this sounds.
>>40176
Sorry, I was being kind of facetious. It is an overreach of executive power. You were correct in that the president cannot legally make treaty, and this is exactly what is happening.
Labeling it "executive agreement" doesn't change that he's acting under color of authority.
However, he wouldn't be the first president to do so.
