NEWSFLASH FOR SNOWFLAKES: Ameria NEVER JOINED The Paris Accords

[Avatar4321]

Watch the confag cucks cry their little eyes out.

Not a thing they can do about the accord until Nov 2020.

We aren't part of the accord. The senate never ratified it. Why of this difficult to understand ?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Wow, you two are soooooooooooo smart. I wish I could be that smart so I could have voted for a liar, business cheat, women assaulting POS like Trump.

This is the depth of liberal discourse.

They don't know shit about anything.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The OP assertion relies upon the Paris Accord indeed being a treaty under U.S. law and not within the scope of what is called "sole executive agreement" (SOE). Though I'm not an attorney, I know enough to know the determination on whether the Accord does or does not fall within SOE purview is what determines whether the U.S. needed to ratify it as it would a treaty.

• Substance, not form is what matters in determining whether the Paris Accord is, under U.S. law. A treaty's name -- "accord," "treaty," or "apple pie" -- is not probative for settling the question. Mere naming does not form the basis for establishing comity on the matter.
• How other countries handle the document does not define the way in which the U.S. should or must do.
• It's well understood that the U.S. legal meaning and application of the term "treaty" is vastly narrower than is that which most other nations apply in their own jurisprudential systems. That said, the matter of what is and is not a treat under U.S. law is far from settled.
  • Treaty vs. Executive Agreement
    
  • Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution
    
  • The Case for Executive Agreements and Climate Protection Authority
    
  • Executive Expediency and Executive Agreements
    
  • The Treaty That Is Not a Treaty (Or An Executive Agreement)
    
  • International Executive Agreements: Their Constitutionality, Scope and Effect
    
    Any meaningful answer to the quest for a delineation of the scope of the President's power to conclude internationally binding agreements has not been, and very probably cannot be, formulated in terms of constitutional doctrine. It must be based, rather, on a realistic appraisal of this country's needs in the domain of international relations. In this sense it is not incompatible with constitutional principles for the President to be accorded a broad degree of discretion over foreign affairs. He is in a better position to act more expediently than Congress, whose members are elected on the basis of their competence and knowledge of local issues. An isolationist may be chagrined at this statement, but we are not living in an isolationist world.

To the best of my knowledge, the SCOTUS has not ruled on the legitimacy of the Paris Accord's being within the scope of SOE. It has, however, prohibited the implementation of carbon restrictions pursuant to the Accord. The result of that decision, ironically, puts the U.S. in the position that conservatives feared other nations would take, thus being the reason for not participating in it.

OK for Obama to enter treaties that can cripple our economy.

Not ok for Trump to issue a travel ban.

Snowflake logic, got it.

Good thing it's perfectly legal for Trump to pull out of the shit deal.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The OP assertion relies upon the Paris Accord indeed being a treaty under U.S. law and not within the scope of what is called "sole executive agreement" (SOE). Though I'm not an attorney, I know enough to know the determination on whether the Accord does or does not fall within SOE purview is what determines whether the U.S. needed to ratify it as it would a treaty.

• Substance, not form is what matters in determining whether the Paris Accord is, under U.S. law. A treaty's name -- "accord," "treaty," or "apple pie" -- is not probative for settling the question. Mere naming does not form the basis for establishing comity on the matter.
• How other countries handle the document does not define the way in which the U.S. should or must do.
• It's well understood that the U.S. legal meaning and application of the term "treaty" is vastly narrower than is that which most other nations apply in their own jurisprudential systems. That said, the matter of what is and is not a treat under U.S. law is far from settled.
  • Treaty vs. Executive Agreement
    
  • Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution
    
  • The Case for Executive Agreements and Climate Protection Authority
    
  • Executive Expediency and Executive Agreements
    
  • The Treaty That Is Not a Treaty (Or An Executive Agreement)
    
  • International Executive Agreements: Their Constitutionality, Scope and Effect
    
    Any meaningful answer to the quest for a delineation of the scope of the President's power to conclude internationally binding agreements has not been, and very probably cannot be, formulated in terms of constitutional doctrine. It must be based, rather, on a realistic appraisal of this country's needs in the domain of international relations. In this sense it is not incompatible with constitutional principles for the President to be accorded a broad degree of discretion over foreign affairs. He is in a better position to act more expediently than Congress, whose members are elected on the basis of their competence and knowledge of local issues. An isolationist may be chagrined at this statement, but we are not living in an isolationist world.

To the best of my knowledge, the SCOTUS has not ruled on the legitimacy of the Paris Accord's being within the scope of SOE. It has, however, prohibited the implementation of carbon restrictions pursuant to the Accord. The result of that decision, ironically, puts the U.S. in the position that conservatives feared other nations would take, thus being the reason for not participating in it.

The Supreme's didn't have to rule on it obozo tried to go around Congress...


So file a lawsuit and embarrass yourself...

 

[Avatar4321]

So this is a non binding agreement now? So why on earth would we be bound to the exit clause if its non binding? And why are you guys freaking out if its nonbinding?

The reaction here makes no sense if you believe it nonbinding. especially since even the leftist politico has publicly stated its a bad deal

 

[james bond]

Snowflakes and Liberals are losing their minds because Obama's Un-Constitutional Global Warming pact in France has been rejected...

President Obama's deal to enter the Paris Accords was just another UN-Constitutional Personal TREATY Obama entered into without ever going through Congress - just like Obama's PERSONAL DEAL with Iran. It was never ratified by Congress, which is what the Constitution calls for.

So the Liberal Extremists, Globalists, and snowflakes are all having breakdowns, becoming 'triggered', and ranting, screaming, crying, and personally attacking President Trump for declaring the United States will not JOIN the Paris Accords, after it never JOINED / AGREED TO ENTER the Paris Accords.


Newsflash: America never joined Paris Agreement - Hot Air

"The fact is the Paris Agreement is a treaty, and the U.S. was never ever a part of it. The United States was the ONLY country that joined by EXECUTIVE ORDER"
...which is is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!

"Countries seem invariably to have accepted the agreement as a treaty that requires going through their internal treaty-ratification processes, typically submission to the legislature. Countries from the United Kingdom to China to Jamaica have ratified it through their legislatures. So has Brazil, Japan, the Philippines and Australia. In the latter, the question of whether it was a binding international accord requiring submission to Parliament received some discussion, and a parliamentary analysis concluded it was a “major treaty” that needed to be submitted."

"There are people out there saying Paris Agreement is non-binding, the language and State Department guidelines appear to suggest otherwise, and reinforce the idea it’s a treaty."


President Trump did not actually withdraw from anything by what the Fake News Liberal media called 'pulling out'' of the Paris Accord. He simply pointed out that the United States had never joined the Paris Accord, as Obama never had the Constitutional Authority he believed he did not need to enter such a Treaty.
** And this clown considered himself a 'Constitutional Scholar'.

So the 'asshole' in this situation is not the one who accurately pointed out the United States had never joined the Paris Accords - it is the one who violated the Constitution...AGAIN...by entering ANOTHER Un-Constitutional Treaty by Executive Order.

Muslim Obama will do anything to leave a legacy. Unfortunately, Real President Trump will drain the swamp and his legacy will go down the tubes.

 

[james bond]

Watch the confag cucks cry their little eyes out.

Not a thing they can do about the accord until Nov 2020.

2024. Trump already called eight glorious years.

 

[JakeStarkey]

He need simply to publicly declare the agreement null and void, that it constitutes a treaty not ratified, that Obama's letter of is of no account as it was outside of his constitutional authority to cement such a treaty in the first place.

In other words, there was never an "agreement" except in the mind of Barack Obama.

Oh, Billy, he has already done what he could, and the rest of your post in meaningless.

Five states, more than a hundred cities, scores of Corporations and businesses small and large, and tens of millions of Americans will go right ahead with the accord and ignore Trump and you.

There is nothing you can do except disagree.

 

[Avatar4321]

Snowflakes and Liberals are losing their minds because Obama's Un-Constitutional Global Warming pact in France has been rejected...

President Obama's deal to enter the Paris Accords was just another UN-Constitutional Personal TREATY Obama entered into without ever going through Congress - just like Obama's PERSONAL DEAL with Iran. It was never ratified by Congress, which is what the Constitution calls for.

So the Liberal Extremists, Globalists, and snowflakes are all having breakdowns, becoming 'triggered', and ranting, screaming, crying, and personally attacking President Trump for declaring the United States will not JOIN the Paris Accords, after it never JOINED / AGREED TO ENTER the Paris Accords.


Newsflash: America never joined Paris Agreement - Hot Air

"The fact is the Paris Agreement is a treaty, and the U.S. was never ever a part of it. The United States was the ONLY country that joined by EXECUTIVE ORDER"
...which is is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!

"Countries seem invariably to have accepted the agreement as a treaty that requires going through their internal treaty-ratification processes, typically submission to the legislature. Countries from the United Kingdom to China to Jamaica have ratified it through their legislatures. So has Brazil, Japan, the Philippines and Australia. In the latter, the question of whether it was a binding international accord requiring submission to Parliament received some discussion, and a parliamentary analysis concluded it was a “major treaty” that needed to be submitted."

"There are people out there saying Paris Agreement is non-binding, the language and State Department guidelines appear to suggest otherwise, and reinforce the idea it’s a treaty."


President Trump did not actually withdraw from anything by what the Fake News Liberal media called 'pulling out'' of the Paris Accord. He simply pointed out that the United States had never joined the Paris Accord, as Obama never had the Constitutional Authority he believed he did not need to enter such a Treaty.
** And this clown considered himself a 'Constitutional Scholar'.

So the 'asshole' in this situation is not the one who accurately pointed out the United States had never joined the Paris Accords - it is the one who violated the Constitution...AGAIN...by entering ANOTHER Un-Constitutional Treaty by Executive Order.

Muslim Obama will do anything to leave a legacy. Unfortunately, Real President Trump will drain the swamp and his legacy will go down the tubes.

If you aren't going to add serious discussion don't bother

 

[OldLady]

Snowflakes and Liberals are losing their minds because Obama's Un-Constitutional Global Warming pact in France has been rejected...

President Obama's deal to enter the Paris Accords was just another UN-Constitutional Personal TREATY Obama entered into without ever going through Congress - just like Obama's PERSONAL DEAL with Iran. It was never ratified by Congress, which is what the Constitution calls for.

So the Liberal Extremists, Globalists, and snowflakes are all having breakdowns, becoming 'triggered', and ranting, screaming, crying, and personally attacking President Trump for declaring the United States will not JOIN the Paris Accords, after it never JOINED / AGREED TO ENTER the Paris Accords.


Newsflash: America never joined Paris Agreement - Hot Air

"The fact is the Paris Agreement is a treaty, and the U.S. was never ever a part of it. The United States was the ONLY country that joined by EXECUTIVE ORDER"
...which is is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!

"Countries seem invariably to have accepted the agreement as a treaty that requires going through their internal treaty-ratification processes, typically submission to the legislature. Countries from the United Kingdom to China to Jamaica have ratified it through their legislatures. So has Brazil, Japan, the Philippines and Australia. In the latter, the question of whether it was a binding international accord requiring submission to Parliament received some discussion, and a parliamentary analysis concluded it was a “major treaty” that needed to be submitted."

"There are people out there saying Paris Agreement is non-binding, the language and State Department guidelines appear to suggest otherwise, and reinforce the idea it’s a treaty."


President Trump did not actually withdraw from anything by what the Fake News Liberal media called 'pulling out'' of the Paris Accord. He simply pointed out that the United States had never joined the Paris Accord, as Obama never had the Constitutional Authority he believed he did not need to enter such a Treaty.
** And this clown considered himself a 'Constitutional Scholar'.

So the 'asshole' in this situation is not the one who accurately pointed out the United States had never joined the Paris Accords - it is the one who violated the Constitution...AGAIN...by entering ANOTHER Un-Constitutional Treaty by Executive Order.

How does the U.S. exit the agreement?

Leaving the Paris Agreement itself is an easy, but lengthy, task.

The deal was specifically designed so that the U.S. could join without the need for congressional approval. On Aug. 29, 2016, President Barack Obama wrote a short letter, which was deposited at the United Nations, signaling that the United States would join the agreement.

A short letter from President Trump will suffice to reverse this action. According to the Paris Agreement, nations that want to withdraw only have to leave a written notice in a U.N. depository.

But Trump won’t be able to write this letter until three years after the Paris Agreement came into force — that is to say, not until Nov. 4, 2019 — thanks to a clause in the deal itself.

It then takes another year before the U.S. can leave the agreement — bringing it to Nov. 4, 2020 — which is also the day after the next presidential election.

With these rules in place, Trump will only see the fulfillment of his campaign promise to leave the Paris agreement either after he’s won a second term as president or been voted out of office.
Top questions and answers now that the U.S. has decided to leave the Paris climate accord

That's all well and good if the US had entered into an agreement. It did not. Obama violated the Constitution by entering into a TREATY.
-- The US was the only one to enter into the treaty by Executive Order'...which, again, is Un-Constitutional.

Again, IMO, Trump did not 'exit' anything as we were never legally, Constitutionally entered in the Accords.
-- If you never entered into a treaty legally, you were never in it.

You should read the article I put up. IT WAS INTENTIONALLY NOT A TREATY. There is no sense discussing this with you any more until you are ready to drop that lie as your basic premise.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He need simply to publicly declare the agreement null and void, that it constitutes a treaty not ratified, that Obama's letter of is of no account as it was outside of his constitutional authority to cement such a treaty in the first place.

In other words, there was never an "agreement" except in the mind of Barack Obama.

Oh, Billy, he has already done what he could, and the rest of your post in meaningless.

Five states, more than a hundred cities, scores of Corporations and businesses small and large, and tens of millions of Americans will go right ahead with the accord and ignore Trump and you.

There is nothing you can do except disagree.

They are free to waste state/municipal tax revenues until the voters turn them out of office. I could not care less.

 

[AntonToo]

Snowflakes and Liberals are losing their minds because Obama's Un-Constitutional Global Warming pact in France has been rejected...

President Obama's deal to enter the Paris Accords was just another UN-Constitutional Personal TREATY Obama entered into without ever going through Congress - just like Obama's PERSONAL DEAL with Iran. It was never ratified by Congress, which is what the Constitution calls for.

So the Liberal Extremists, Globalists, and snowflakes are all having breakdowns, becoming 'triggered', and ranting, screaming, crying, and personally attacking President Trump for declaring the United States will not JOIN the Paris Accords, after it never JOINED / AGREED TO ENTER the Paris Accords.


Newsflash: America never joined Paris Agreement - Hot Air

"The fact is the Paris Agreement is a treaty, and the U.S. was never ever a part of it. The United States was the ONLY country that joined by EXECUTIVE ORDER"
...which is is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!

"Countries seem invariably to have accepted the agreement as a treaty that requires going through their internal treaty-ratification processes, typically submission to the legislature. Countries from the United Kingdom to China to Jamaica have ratified it through their legislatures. So has Brazil, Japan, the Philippines and Australia. In the latter, the question of whether it was a binding international accord requiring submission to Parliament received some discussion, and a parliamentary analysis concluded it was a “major treaty” that needed to be submitted."

"There are people out there saying Paris Agreement is non-binding, the language and State Department guidelines appear to suggest otherwise, and reinforce the idea it’s a treaty."


President Trump did not actually withdraw from anything by what the Fake News Liberal media called 'pulling out'' of the Paris Accord. He simply pointed out that the United States had never joined the Paris Accord, as Obama never had the Constitutional Authority he believed he did not need to enter such a Treaty.
** And this clown considered himself a 'Constitutional Scholar'.

So the 'asshole' in this situation is not the one who accurately pointed out the United States had never joined the Paris Accords - it is the one who violated the Constitution...AGAIN...by entering ANOTHER Un-Constitutional Treaty by Executive Order.

How does the U.S. exit the agreement?

Leaving the Paris Agreement itself is an easy, but lengthy, task.

The deal was specifically designed so that the U.S. could join without the need for congressional approval. On Aug. 29, 2016, President Barack Obama wrote a short letter, which was deposited at the United Nations, signaling that the United States would join the agreement.

A short letter from President Trump will suffice to reverse this action. According to the Paris Agreement, nations that want to withdraw only have to leave a written notice in a U.N. depository.

But Trump won’t be able to write this letter until three years after the Paris Agreement came into force — that is to say, not until Nov. 4, 2019 — thanks to a clause in the deal itself.

It then takes another year before the U.S. can leave the agreement — bringing it to Nov. 4, 2020 — which is also the day after the next presidential election.

With these rules in place, Trump will only see the fulfillment of his campaign promise to leave the Paris agreement either after he’s won a second term as president or been voted out of office.
Top questions and answers now that the U.S. has decided to leave the Paris climate accord

No treaty can be designed to avoid the constitutional requirements. The founders specifically designed our republic so the president could not take unilateral action on international agreements

NON BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT A TREATY.

A nonbinding agreement is nonbinding

Either way results are the same.

The result as we agreed to it (yes agreement does actually exist, even if non-binding) and now Trump announced withdrawal from agreement.

 

[Avatar4321]

Snowflakes and Liberals are losing their minds because Obama's Un-Constitutional Global Warming pact in France has been rejected...

President Obama's deal to enter the Paris Accords was just another UN-Constitutional Personal TREATY Obama entered into without ever going through Congress - just like Obama's PERSONAL DEAL with Iran. It was never ratified by Congress, which is what the Constitution calls for.

So the Liberal Extremists, Globalists, and snowflakes are all having breakdowns, becoming 'triggered', and ranting, screaming, crying, and personally attacking President Trump for declaring the United States will not JOIN the Paris Accords, after it never JOINED / AGREED TO ENTER the Paris Accords.


Newsflash: America never joined Paris Agreement - Hot Air

"The fact is the Paris Agreement is a treaty, and the U.S. was never ever a part of it. The United States was the ONLY country that joined by EXECUTIVE ORDER"
...which is is UN-CONSTITUTIONAL!

"Countries seem invariably to have accepted the agreement as a treaty that requires going through their internal treaty-ratification processes, typically submission to the legislature. Countries from the United Kingdom to China to Jamaica have ratified it through their legislatures. So has Brazil, Japan, the Philippines and Australia. In the latter, the question of whether it was a binding international accord requiring submission to Parliament received some discussion, and a parliamentary analysis concluded it was a “major treaty” that needed to be submitted."

"There are people out there saying Paris Agreement is non-binding, the language and State Department guidelines appear to suggest otherwise, and reinforce the idea it’s a treaty."


President Trump did not actually withdraw from anything by what the Fake News Liberal media called 'pulling out'' of the Paris Accord. He simply pointed out that the United States had never joined the Paris Accord, as Obama never had the Constitutional Authority he believed he did not need to enter such a Treaty.
** And this clown considered himself a 'Constitutional Scholar'.

So the 'asshole' in this situation is not the one who accurately pointed out the United States had never joined the Paris Accords - it is the one who violated the Constitution...AGAIN...by entering ANOTHER Un-Constitutional Treaty by Executive Order.

How does the U.S. exit the agreement?

Leaving the Paris Agreement itself is an easy, but lengthy, task.

The deal was specifically designed so that the U.S. could join without the need for congressional approval. On Aug. 29, 2016, President Barack Obama wrote a short letter, which was deposited at the United Nations, signaling that the United States would join the agreement.

A short letter from President Trump will suffice to reverse this action. According to the Paris Agreement, nations that want to withdraw only have to leave a written notice in a U.N. depository.

But Trump won’t be able to write this letter until three years after the Paris Agreement came into force — that is to say, not until Nov. 4, 2019 — thanks to a clause in the deal itself.

It then takes another year before the U.S. can leave the agreement — bringing it to Nov. 4, 2020 — which is also the day after the next presidential election.

With these rules in place, Trump will only see the fulfillment of his campaign promise to leave the Paris agreement either after he’s won a second term as president or been voted out of office.
Top questions and answers now that the U.S. has decided to leave the Paris climate accord

No treaty can be designed to avoid the constitutional requirements. The founders specifically designed our republic so the president could not take unilateral action on international agreements

NON BINDING AGREEMENT IS NOT A TREATY.

A nonbinding agreement is nonbinding

Either way results are the same.

The result as we agreed to it (yes agreement does actually exist, even if non-binding) and now Trump announced withdrawal from agreement.

Are you unclear about what nonbinding means? Or why its crazy to claim we are bound to a nonbinding agreement?

If the president how power to circumnavigate Congress with these agreements that spend our tax money, don't you think Jefferson would have used this to purchase Louisiana instead of the legitimate process?

 

[easyt65]

You should read the article I put up. IT WAS INTENTIONALLY NOT A TREATY. There is no sense discussing this with you any more until you are ready to drop that lie as your basic premise.

Did you read the article I posted which states the US was the only country to 'join' the Accords by Executive Order?

It seems our respective articles disagree / conflict....and you declare since I do not agree with your article, which you declare is the only correct opinion / argument, there is no further reason to discuss this with me...because I don't agree with you?!

By definition:

TREATY:
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms.

Is this NOT what the Paris Accords are, OL - an international agreement, covenant, convention pact. Was the Paris Accord not a pact / agreement between NATIONS? Did Obama not enter this agreement ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, which he did NOT have the Constitutional Authority to do?

A TREATY is an official binding pact between the United States and other nations that can only be entered into by Authorization / Ratification through the United States Government. Obama failed to follow this process and thus did not legally enter such an agreement with any other nation, just as he failed to do with his Iran Treaty.

Whatever you want to call what Obama did, it was not binding, as Obama - without Congress' Approval, does not have the authorization to enter the US as a nation into a binding resolution / agreement with other nations.

 

[easyt65]

Are you unclear about what nonbinding means? Or why its crazy to claim we are bound to a nonbinding agreement?

Snowflakes believe is Obama said it on his own or agreed to it on his own, it is legal and binding - the word of 'god'.

All hail King Barry!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Easyt, the only reasonable answer to your diatribe is "so what." It is what it is.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh, so it was a non binding agreement...meaning Drumph was lying to us about why the US had to leave it. Thanks!

 

[SeaGal]

Does any one else see the hypocrisy in supporting a president who took an oath to defend the Constitution, then applaud/defend the dictator worthy action of conspiring with international entities to circumvent same? Kinda like saying - 'America is a great country, come help me fundamentally transform it.'

Another point of view -
Opinion | The U.S. can’t quit the Paris climate agreement, because it never actually joined

 

[usmbguest5318]

The OP assertion relies upon the Paris Accord indeed being a treaty under U.S. law and not within the scope of what is called "sole executive agreement" (SOE). Though I'm not an attorney, I know enough to know the determination on whether the Accord does or does not fall within SOE purview is what determines whether the U.S. needed to ratify it as it would a treaty.

• Substance, not form is what matters in determining whether the Paris Accord is, under U.S. law. A treaty's name -- "accord," "treaty," or "apple pie" -- is not probative for settling the question. Mere naming does not form the basis for establishing comity on the matter.
• How other countries handle the document does not define the way in which the U.S. should or must do.
• It's well understood that the U.S. legal meaning and application of the term "treaty" is vastly narrower than is that which most other nations apply in their own jurisprudential systems. That said, the matter of what is and is not a treat under U.S. law is far from settled.
  • Treaty vs. Executive Agreement
    
  • Unratified Treaties, Domestic Politics, and the U.S. Constitution
    
  • The Case for Executive Agreements and Climate Protection Authority
    
  • Executive Expediency and Executive Agreements
    
  • The Treaty That Is Not a Treaty (Or An Executive Agreement)
    
  • International Executive Agreements: Their Constitutionality, Scope and Effect
    
    Any meaningful answer to the quest for a delineation of the scope of the President's power to conclude internationally binding agreements has not been, and very probably cannot be, formulated in terms of constitutional doctrine. It must be based, rather, on a realistic appraisal of this country's needs in the domain of international relations. In this sense it is not incompatible with constitutional principles for the President to be accorded a broad degree of discretion over foreign affairs. He is in a better position to act more expediently than Congress, whose members are elected on the basis of their competence and knowledge of local issues. An isolationist may be chagrined at this statement, but we are not living in an isolationist world.

To the best of my knowledge, the SCOTUS has not ruled on the legitimacy of the Paris Accord's being within the scope of SOE. It has, however, prohibited the implementation of carbon restrictions pursuant to the Accord. The result of that decision, ironically, puts the U.S. in the position that conservatives feared other nations would take, thus being the reason for not participating in it.

OK for Obama to enter treaties that can cripple our economy.

Not ok for Trump to issue a travel ban.

Snowflake logic, got it.

Good thing it's perfectly legal for Trump to pull out of the shit deal.

OK for Obama to enter treaties that can cripple our economy.

Not ok for Trump to issue a travel ban.

What's okay or not is a matter of how the courts rule(-ed) with regard to the matters at issue. I'm not a jurist, so it has nothing to do with me, and the "court of public opinion" isn't an authorized arbiter of such matters, it won't unless and until voting members of the latter "court" emplace representatives who'll enact legislation that contracts or expands executive power, or that obviates or authorizes an executive order.

 

[HenryBHough]

Maybe if O'Bumbles hadn't made so free with unconstitutional Executive Orders the current and all future presidents wouldn't have been unleashed. Ye has reaped wot yo has sewn. (Kenyan dialect to make it easy for you libs to grasp).