Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
US and the United Nations Climate Change Conference
Options
-
03-11-2009 2:34pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
You scholar!For those who'd rather read than listen......
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
Something I noticed in the comments, and looked up thereafter:
http://www.fryer.com/WGAERPA.htmIn the United States a treaty must be consented to by the Senate. The first step in that process, usually, is review of the treaty by the current administration, to see if it is consistent with United States policies and law. The Geneva Act was reviewed initially by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). This Office was actively involved in the development of the Geneva Act, including attending all the meeting of experts and the diplomatic conference in 1999. The United States signed the treaty document, indicating a commitment to presented it to Congress for approval.
The United States State Department reviews each treaty for the administration and prepares a recommendation for the President on whether the United States should ratify the treaty. The State Department works closely with the PTO during this review, but the policy considerations taken into consideration are of a broad scope. The State Department prepares the documents for submission to the Senate to request approval of the treaty. A final review of these documents is made by the President's staff. If the President considers the treaty in the best interest of the United States, the documents are sent to the Senate, to start the process of consent. In the case of the Geneva Act, the treaty was sent to the Senate by a letter from the President on November 13, 2006, with a supporting document.
A treaty sent to the Senate for ratification is referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A review of the histories in the Senate for recent treaties forwarded to that committee indicated various results. Usually, there is a hearing on the treaty, to determine if there is any public concerns, or need for special legislative implementation. A political decision is made by the Committee Chair on what the appropriate process should be.
The submission of a treaty to the Senate may include specific reservations or declarations that should be made, recommended by the administration. In the case of the Geneva Act, the supporting document listed several declarations that should be made as part of the Senate consent to the treaty, to adjust the treaty to the United States legal system.
There may be United States laws that need to changed as a result of treaty approval. A separate legislative bill is introduced by the administration to accomplish this change, and the bill follows the standard process for approval of new laws in the Congress. The Senate may wait for the legislation approval before giving its consent to the treaty. In the case of the Geneva Act, the President's letter made the commitment not to take the final step to deposit the necessary documents, to implement the treaty until the United States laws have been changed to comply the the treaty.
The administration has not submitted legislation to make the few changes needed in the United States patent law. The PTO has draft the legislation, but it is still under review. At the same time, the PTO needs to develop the necessary Patent and Trademark rules for the Geneva Act. This process will require public input, and it is a significant effort. It is one of the important next steps that need to occur for the United States ratification of the Geneva Act to occur. The Senate may wait for the complete package, law and rules change, before providing its consent. The final steps for Senate consent are a recommendation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a favorable vote by the Senate.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is responsive to expression of support and questions from the public. Companies and other organizations can contact this Committee to express their support and ask questions (See Topic: How United States companies can participate in the ratification process).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty#United_States_lawIn the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.
Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.
For something thats going to be so obviously controversial (obvious to some maybe :pac:) I doubt this will be an Executive agreement and will actually get Ratified by house and/or Senate?
And doesnt it take like a 2/3rds vote?
Lord Mockington here does go off and admit in the Q&A he doesnt really "do" US Politics. So I can see how he might have totally jumped the gun on his apocalyptic projections.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Communism… A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.I'm not sure how that qualifies as "communism" actually.
This UN "World Government" will oversee the transformation of the global economy for "the greater good."
Seems pretty evident to me.
Did you mean charity or vulgarity?Is charity the same thing as communism in your view?
0 -
-
-
-
Nodin, RedPlanet originally used the term communism in this thread. I only pointed (not shouted) out in response to his questions that it sure does appear to smack of Communism by definition IMO.
And I do not consider these required payments as “compensation,” but rather as thugary, utilizing unresolved scientific issues as their basis, from the Left which has taken over the United Nations with their anti-American purpose driven agenda.
And as a conservative, I consider his Supreme Court pick as “far left.” But I realize and respect others will consider differently. And that’s okay in my book (as long as you don’t try and make me go sit in the corner). 0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement