The Constitution gives the Senate authority to ratify treaties or not, no matter what Climate-Change-believers think.
Arthur Milikh has written a revealing piece at the Daily Signal: “What the Left’s Moments of Condescension Reveal.”
Sometimes the left unwittingly throws gems our way. These come in rare moments of exasperation, rather than the usual poise the left displays. The transformation of America, after all, requires quiet, subtle movements, coordinated with high-minded propaganda. That’s why moments of condescending contempt, accompanied by the left’s sharpest weapon — mockery—are so revealing.
For example, during a recent White House press briefing, President Obama’s press secretary, Josh Earnest, was asked whether Congress should have a say on the agreement with China that commits the United States to reducing its carbon output over the next 10 years. Rather than taking it to Capitol Hill, however, Secretary of State John Kerry submitted our “commitment” to the U.N.
In response to the questioner, Earnest said many members of Congress “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.”
Earnest’s remarks show a contemptuous ignorance of the reasons behind our Constitution. The Senate’s involvement in international agreements that obligate the United States to sacrifices and the fulfillment of promises to foreign nations is not a mindless tradition, as Earnest implies.
Mass deception is a regular part of human history. It would be interesting to travel 100 years into the future and see how it judges this whole “climate change” nonsense—will it be labeled as masterful propaganda or simply a grievous error?
Bulletin to Josh Earnest: Those members of Congress about whom you scoff are absolutely correct that man has virtually nothing to do with the changes in the weather. Thankfully the Constitution says they’re supposed to stand in the way of people who manufacture a crisis so they can utilize it for nefarious ends.
There is so much truth in this paragraph:
The Senate, as originally designed, was meant (insofar as possible) to preserve prudence in democratic politics by removing that body to a great extent from the influence of public opinion. This meant longer tenure in office and indirect election. This was done in order to create a deliberative body capable of seriously reflecting on the unknown continent of the future. As John Jay writes in Federalist No. 64, the Senate will possess “discretion and discernment,” as opposed to the “energy” of the executive.
The 17th Amendment was one of the biggest mistakes in history, and put together with the 16th Amendment, and creation of the Federal Reserve—all in the same year, 1913—goes to show how dangerous it can be when mass delusion infects a single generation.