Oppose Obama's Bypassing of Senate With Climate Accord
There is no way that an assortment of extreme environmental strictures will be approved by Congress. There are too many skeptics who refuse to believe the gloom-and-doom forecasts of radical environmentalists and their allies in the nation's mass media. This is especially true in the Senate, where any treaty restricting energy production and subsequent economic activity would have to win the approval of two thirds of its members. This is why the United States never submitted to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, a United Nations treaty that was designed to restrict the emissions of "greenhouse gases," supposedly to prevent man-made global warming.
But
those who would bring America to its knees don't accept defeat; they
figure out some new way to reach their goals. The latest skirting of the
Constitution involves the use of what is termed "reflexive law." Not a
law as we have always known the term, reflexive law is created when
opponents of a sought-after goal are browbeaten into submission and
forced by propagandized public pressure to accept what they disagree
with or actually believe to be harmful.Environmentalists have the ear of most journalists. Their claims are accepted as fact and dutifully fed to the public. Anyone who disagrees is subject to abuse of various kinds until he or she submits. In his August 27 article, "Reflexive Law: How Sustainable Development Has Conned Us All," posted on his August Forecast & Review website, Patrick Wood cites a recent New York Times article that describes the process as "naming and shaming" opponents into submission. The sought-after result would be what is termed "soft law." Not a law in the usual sense, but a combination of pressure and inevitability directed at those who don't approve of something. Occasionally, someone who resists the demands for compliance with some governmental or organizational rule is told that he'd better go along with it or far more onerous regulations would be forthcoming.
According to "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Lieu of Treaty" (New York Times, August 26), the article cited by Wood above, the use of reflexive law is now being considered by the Obama administration in place of a formal treaty. The plan calls for the president to issue Executive Orders tying our nation to a global treaty addressing widely touted but never-proved global warming. Demands for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, the supposed cause of climate change (the new name for global warming), are forthcoming - not as formal law but as reflexive law. The Times states, "American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement - a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges." The Times article quotes Jake Schmidt, a National Resources Defense Council expert, who notes that promoters of new regulations "are trying to move this as far as possible without having to reach the 67-vote threshold" in the Senate.
It's easy to classify this latest move toward cancelling sovereignty as patently outrageous and then shrug one's shoulders at another bit of overreach by the enemies of freedom. But, unlike so many other outrages, this one involves a new process of skirting the Constitution. It's not a single measure. If reflexive law is allowed, then we have no Constitution, no rule of law.
Senators need to know that there are citizens who will not stand for this completely unconstitutional skirting of the document each has sworn to be guided by.
Please send a message to your senators in opposition to the Obama administration's plan to use "reflexive law" to bypass the Senate ratification process with a new climate accord.
Thanks.
Your Friends at The John Birch Society
P.S. Click here to view this email message as an article at JBS.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment