That Paris Agreement President Biden signed us onto, was it legal he did that? You realize the Constitution says treaties need to have two-thirds approval from the Senate, don't you? Executive orders don't work, right?
Well, not that this makes it right, but almost 90 percent of international agreements (say roughly 15,000 of them) that the U.S. has entered since World War II have been approved as executive agreements.
More to the point, however. the U.S. entered into the Global Climate Protection Act with approval of Congress. That law directs the U.S. to “work toward multilateral agreements” on climate change, and empowers the U.S. to “identify technologies and activities to limit mankind’s adverse effect on the global climate.”
The law acknowledges that the global nature of climate change “will require vigorous efforts to achieve international cooperation,” and states that “such international cooperation will be greatly enhanced by United States Leadership." It explicitly authorizes the secretary of state to take international action consistent with United States domestic law. By my quick count, it was approved by a 51-39 vote in the Senate.
That is not a two-thirds majority, but there are other acts of Congress that are more explicit in giving the president authority to enter such agreements -- and they did pass with two-thirds of the senators approving them. There was the Clean Air Act, which directs the president to “undertake to enter into international agreements” to protect the stratosphere. And, there was the Endangered Species Act directs the Executive Branch to enter into “bilateral or multilateral agreements to foreign countries.” The Senate vote was 89-10 for the Clean Air Act. The Endangered Species Act? It passed the senate with a 92-0 vote.
So, should the Paris Agreement go back to the Senate? Or, do the Senate's approval of these laws make it legal? It seems both arguments have value.
(Index -- Climate change info)
No comments:
Post a Comment