XBradTC

The State Department argues that under the Treaty on Treaties, the US is obligated to act as if the Senate had in fact ratified the accords, until such time as the Senate actually votes down ratification.

Which, the Senate cannot do, since Obama refused to submit it to the Senate.

Here’s what that means- federal agencies would then impose regulations to effect the US standards required by the Paris accords, which would have the force of law, even to include civil and criminal penalties, and, as an added bonus, beyond the review of Congress.

You think Democrat infested bureaucracies weren’t hard at work finding ways to stick it to unfavored groups, while finding creative ways to support pet causes? It’s not at all difficult to imagine industries that make generous contributions to the Clinton Global Initiative or Organizing For America somehow receiving exemptions and waivers to onerous regulations.

Whether or not one believes climate change is an important issue that calls for important policies to address, the Paris Climate Accord was not serious policy. Indeed, China and India essentially do nothing under it. Mind you, China is bringing a new coal fired power plant online every 10 days or so, and their plants are just a touch less environmentally fastidious than ours. Under the PCA, China would not even begin to  set a target until 2030. And even then, there’s no enforcement mechanism or punishment for failure to achieve a target.

But what PCA would do is bypass Congress and put enormous domestic power into the hands of unelected bureaucrats, even beyond that they possess today.

Surely this would be unconstitutional you say?

The Treaty of Treaties (which itself has never been submitted for ratification to the Senate) hasn’t been struck down by SCOTUS yet. Given the composition of the Court over the years, there’s always been a risk that SCOTUS would essentially kill the Constitution and hold that the State Department’s theory was valid.

See also this excellent piece.

And then, there’s this: