For the past year I have heard from many conservatives that we are about to lose the protections of our US Constitution by a pending treaty that president Obama is scheduled to support when top world leaders meet in Copenhagen this December.
This upcoming event is the “COP15”, Copenhagen Denmark, United Nations Climate Change Conference being held from December 7-18.
A “One World Order,” conspiracy theory or not, is a very serious threat that requires due diligence on the part of every American.
COP15 president Connie Hedegaard has been quoted saying ” Failure in Copenhagen is not an option”
“If the world fails to deliver a political agreement at the UN climate conference in December, it will be “the whole global democratic system not being able to deliver results in one of the defining challenges of our century”, says incoming COP15 president, Connie Hedegaard.
The following you tube video with Lord
Christopher Monckton cites three distinct aspects to this initiative.
1. Creation of a world government
2. Transfer of wealth from the west to the third world under the pretense of our climate debt
3. Enforcement where this new world order treaty will trump our Constitution. As the major nation to fund this Treaty we will not be able to opt-out once it is signed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MBu4AMu0so&NR=1
Hear what the pro-side has to say on this major Agenda item:
http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=2257
And lastly is the input from UN climate change official Yvo de Boer
“De Boer: No fully fledged treaty in Copenhagen
“We have to focus on what can realistically be done,” says UN top climate change official Yvo de Boer. He does not believe in “a fully fledged new international treaty” in Copenhagen.
Marianne Bom 20/10/2009 11:30
The UN climate conference in Copenhagen will not succeed to agree on a new international treaty under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Instead, the meeting must reach agreement to set up a structure of a deal with technical details to be filled in later, says the UN top climate negotiator in an interview with the Financial Times.
“A fully fledged new international treaty under the [UN Framework] Convention [on Climate Change] – I do not think that is going to happen,” Yvo de Boer says. “If you look at the limited amount of time remaining to Copenhagen, it’s clear.”
Yvo de Boer gave the interview Monday on the sidelines of the Major Economies Forum in London – a meeting of 17 top emitters of greenhouse gases about climate.
It is probably the first time Yvo de Boer sends such a clear signal about the new direction of the international climate negotiations. It means that the climate chief does not believe the Copenhagen conference to agree on a replacement to the Kyoto Protocol as planned.
“If you look at the limited amount of time that remains to Copenhagen, we have to focus on what can realistically be done and how that can realistically be framed,” says de Boer, mentioning that the need was to “concentrate on the political imperatives that make it clear how countries are committed [to tackling climate change] and engaging in cutting emissions, and what co-operative mechanisms they need to put in place.”
“That means an overarching decision at Copenhagen that sets out individual targets for industrialized countries, that decides how major developing countries intend to engage [in curbing emissions by] 2020, and hopefully that puts that in the context of a long-term goal [of cutting global emissions by 2050].”
The meeting in Copenhagen should “decide a deadline by which that architecture can be negotiated into something comprehensive”, such as a legally binding international treaty.
Yvo de Boer called on world leaders to participate in Copenhagen.
“The effect of President Obama would be an enormous increase in the chances of finalizing agreement at Copenhagen, as he could put his personal political backing behind it.”
Yvo de Boer warns that failure of agreement in Copenhagen would be disastrous.
“Failure at Copenhagen really means ending up with nothing, because it will mean less confidence in this multilateral process and it will mean that new political priorities emerge on the horizon.”
“I can just see it getting more and more difficult, not easier.” (Photo: Scanpix/EPA)
Larry,
Are these conservatives you’ve been listening to the same conservatives who were “warning” us about Obama’s G-20 summit, where he was also going to create a “new world order”?
Before you get your knickers in a bunch over the right-wing media’s latest fear mongering, you might want to check out Media Matters article on the subject; http://mediamatters.org/research/200910200042.
Since I know you’re afraid of Media Matters and “facts” and too much readin’ are an anathema to you crazies, here’s the deal;
“In 1957, a Supreme Court plurality opinion stated that “[t]his Court has regularly and uniformly RECOGNIZED THE SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION OVER A TREATY. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:”.
And if that’s not enough egg on your face for you, there’s a hot story about Obama’s college thesis you might want to write a post about.
Hi Anonster.
Media Matters. Great source. Second to Keith Olbermann
Email response with a comment that I should have check into:
Larry
It seems that a supporting vote of two thirds of the senate is required to ratify a treaty. I believe that at least one president has signed a treaty which was never ratified. “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur”
Henry
More information on Lord Monckton including his opinion on public health care.
http://www.hootervillegazette.com
Apparently there may be some arm twisting by the current administration to obtain the super majority vote of approval to open the door for president Obama to sign the proposed COP 15 treaty.
Some Google history:
“Restore the Senate’s treaty power”
By John R. Bolton and John Yoo
“U.S. Constitution’s Treaty Clause has long been seen, rightly, as a bulwark against presidential inclinations to lock the United States into unwise foreign commitments. The clause will likely be tested by Barack Obama’s administration, as the new president and Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton, led by the legal academics in whose circles they have long traveled, contemplate binding down U.S. power and interests in a dense web of treaties and international bureaucracies.
Like past presidents, Obama will likely be tempted to avoid the requirement that treaties must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The usual methods around this constitutional constraint are executive agreements or a majority vote in the House and Senate to pass a treaty as a simple law (known as a congressional-executive agreement).
Executive agreements have an acknowledged but limited place in America’s foreign affairs. Congressional-executive agreements are far more troubling. They have evoked scathing attacks by constitutional experts and have been strongly resisted in the Senate, at least so far.
The framers of the Constitution designed the treaty process with a bias against “entangling alliances,” as Thomas Jefferson described them in his first inaugural address. They designated the Senate as the body responsible to protect the interests of the states from being bargained away by the president in deals with foreign nations. The framers required a supermajority to ensure that treaties would reflect a broad consensus and careful decision-making.
America needs to maintain its sovereignty and autonomy, not to subordinate its policies, foreign or domestic, to international control. On a broad variety of issues – many of which sound more like domestic rather than foreign policy – the re-emergence of the benignly labeled “global governance” movement is well under way in the Obama transition.
Candidate Obama promised to “re-engage” and “work constructively within” the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Will he pass a new Kyoto climate accord through Congress by sidestepping the constitutional requirement to persuade two-thirds of the Senate?
Draconian restrictions on energy use would follow. A majority of the Congress would be much easier for Obama to get than a supermajority of the Senate. A scholar at the Brookings Institution has already proposed that a new president overcome objections to this environmentalists’ holy grail by evading the Treaty Clause.
President Bush resisted many efforts at global governance. But his administration still sometimes fell into the temptation to flout the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
In 2002, the administration considered submitting the Treaty of Moscow, a nuclear arms reduction agreement, for majority approval of Congress. Vice President-elect Joe Biden, who was then the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, privately made clear that he would vigorously oppose such an attempt to evade the Senate’s constitutional prerogatives. The administration agreed to submit the agreement as a treaty, and the Moscow agreement cleared the Senate.
We hope the new vice president will not reverse his commitment to the Senate’s constitutional authority. But an administration determined to tie one hand behind America’s back might use congressional-executive agreements to push the nation all too easily into quixotic and impractical global governance regimes.
President Bill Clinton signed Kyoto, but the Senate in effect rejected it. He also signed the Rome Treaty of 1998 that established an International Criminal Court, which would subject U.S. soldiers and officials to unaccountable international prosecutors and judges for alleged war crimes (including, potentially, the undefined crime of “aggression”). Clinton did not even send this agreement to the Senate. Bush “unsigned” it. Obama might re-sign it and seek approval by only a majority of both houses of Congress.”
Larry,
I can see why YOU don’t like Media Matters, they deal with what is ( facts, transcripts, statements IN CONTEXT), whereas conservative crazies like to worry about all the scary thoughts and fantasies conjured up in their twisted little minds.
How about this, Larry –
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=133&invol=258#267
I found it – me, your juice brother Vern! It’s true! I looked it up! It’s true!
In 1957, a Supreme Court plurality opinion stated that “[t]his Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty”:
This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=133&invol=258#267 it declared: “The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.”
Now you don’t have to worry about scary unreliable Media Matters, and you can check it out for yourself!
Oh, the “frosting” (that’s when we bring up righties’ double standards)
I’ve searched long and fruitlessly for Larry’s clarion calls on the Cheney-Bush administretion’s relentless eight-year long assault on the Constitution. Where are those posts filed, Larry, raising the alarum about illegal eavesdropping, denial of habeas corpus, and respect of the separation of powers? I am at a loss!
Vern. You among others spent so much time attacking president Bush I simply didn’t want to spoil your target practice.
Separation of powers will save the day in this fight as Obama will not get the supermajority of the senate required to approve any “save the planet” treaty in December