Yes, you read it right.
You probably thought that it was President Bush who refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty, right? And if only he would sign the thing and send it over to the Senate for ratification, we could get on with the important business of saving the planet.
That's the narrative the mainstream press wants us to believe. The Democrats would happily implement Kyoto if Bush would stop blocking the treaty.
Wrong. Bush couldn't sign the Kyoto treaty if he wanted to. It was already signed by Clinton. The Senate could vote on ratification if it so desired. But they haven't. Has Harry Reid lifted a finger to bring Kyoto to a floor vote? Nope.
Why not? There is a very strong legal argument that as soon as a treaty is signed, the Senate can take it up. No need to wait for any official "transmittal" by the President to the Senate. Something as important as Kyoto, surely the Senate Democrats would make this legal case and fight to get the treaty implemented, right?
No, Kyoto is a far better political weapon than it is a weapon against global warming, and the Democrats know it. They get to posture for their environmentalist friends, bashing Bush on global warming, and the media plays along.
They know that even Democrats won't vote for it, so they pretend they don't have the power to bring it to a vote.
From now on, every time I hear the word "Kyoto," I am going to point out that the Democrats are the obstacle.
What hypocrites.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Shows once and for all that global warming is just another political fight and has nothing to do with anything real.
Democrats look so stupid, but they get away with it because the media is going along.
Notice the left-wing vernaclar folks -- nasty personal attacks from nasty individuals from the left. So what else is new?
Anon 8:15 -
Of course Bush isn't going to implement Kyoto - he knows the whole thing is a scam. But that isn't the point.
The point is the Democrats, if they so desired, could ratify the thing right now, even in the face of Bush's opposition.
Why don't they? And why aren't the enviro groups demanding it? And why isn't the media pointing this out?
I think the answers are obvious.
It's unclear to me that the Senate can vote on it without the President first submitting it to them. The Wikipedia article seems to indicate that the President must submit the treaty for ratification, but it is not entirely clear on the matter. What source are you reading that indicates otherwise?
Mick -
Yes the question is what does it mean to "submit" a treaty to the Senate? The Senate can change its rules, and by making certain rule changes could probably force a vote on any unsubmitted treaty.
Read this: http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/bg1241.cfm
The point is that there is a good legal argument to be made that the Senate has this authority, and if the Democrats truly wanted Kyoto, you could damn well bet they would make this argument.
But they don't because they know how stupid Kyoto is, and they would far rather use it as a political bludgeon.
Post a Comment