Guest Post: A Letter to Europe by Jonathan LaForce

I haven’t had time to write about the Paris Accords and our withdrawal from them. Thankfully, a good friend and a fellow vet does and did.

Despite all the claims about what this “treaty” would and wouldn’t do, we have a Constitution. It is our law of the land. And no European leader, who exists under the umbrella of security provided largely by the United States, has the authority to dictate to us what provisions of what treaty our federal government should implement – especially since said “treaty” was not ratified by the Senate.

The Constitution provides that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”

Let’s not forget that.

Dear Europe,

According to the Constitution of these United States, any treaty to which we are a signatory (and therefore an active participant) must be ratified, which is to say approved, by the legislative body of the U.S.  It does not matter how much the chief of the executive branch (President) likes a particular treaty, it must be voted upon and approved.  

There is no leeway in the matter.  Any attempt to do otherwise is a violation.  One might even argue that such is a impeachable offense.  My good friend and lawyer (who has studied the Constitution at great length in his profession) Matt Pethybridge can provide any clarification on that matter.  

Now that we have explained this, I direct your attention to November 2016, when then-President Obama entered into the Paris Accords.  It was all well and good, but he forgot something along the way.  I blame his forgetfulness on his consistently proven desire to rule by executive fiat rather than through the elected representatives of the citizenry.  The U.S. Legislature never voted to approve the Paris Accords.  It was never submitted to them, and they never ratified them.  Yet, then-President Obama tried to force our entire industrial base and commercial sector to follow these accords as binding law.  Such behavior is neither correct nor proper.  

Some may find this upsetting, but I wish to put you at ease.  

Suppose President Trump entered into talks with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, in an effort to  craft a treaty which as part of its provisions stripped women of the right to vote and right to drive motor vehicles.  We’ll call this treaty the Saudi Accords.  Now suppose that even though the Saudi Accords are not fully finished being negotiated, President Trump signs them anyway, and begins enforcing the treaty’s provisions.  

Would this be legally binding!  Would it be right? Would it be ethical? No.

Why?  Because this treaty was never ratified by the Legislature (I suppose that’s why the Paris Accords were called “accords” and not a “treaty”)!  Treaty ratification is an important part of the checks and balances our founding fathers built into our system of governance.  I, for one, am quite grateful we have it. Just like I’m grateful my wife can vote and drive (she’s very good at it).