Prudence indeed…

What sparked my writing of this post can be found here

I can’t help but be amazed at the loop-hole we find ourselves in.  I’m actually a little bit scared.

President Obama is to travel to Copenhagen in December where he will be presented with a treaty on climate change (now called climate change instead of global warming because we’ve been cooling off for so long).  This is why I’m scared:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

—U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Section 2
Like I said, what a loophole.  So, instead of the amendment process to make something the supreme law of the land, which requires state ratification, the federal government can just sign a treaty.  With the multitude of laws passed by government (nearly all of which are unconstitutional) we still have the possibility that the courts could protect (a flimsy protection nowadays, but a protection nonetheless).  Under Article VI, Section 2, no court would have the power to declare a law made to accomadate a treaty as unconstitutional.
Why is this so unnerving?  Maybe because this is a meeting on climate change.  CLIMATE CHANGE.  With the mass amount of support that Obama has put towards this psuedo-crisis environmentalists have been pushing on us in, either, a fit of vanity, complete ignorance, or total corruption, it is not unlikely that Obama’s pen will scratch that paper.  Why not for him?  A massive step on climate change would be one of “transience” for those seeking to prove breathing hurts the planet.  Nice amount of votes there.  Cap-and-trade still finds itself unable to make any headway (although it keeps trying) so why not just sidestep legitimate legislative precesses and make climate change initiatives part of the constitution?  Am I the only one that thinks we stand on a precipice here?  To surrender our liberties to our own government is one thing, but to surrender them to another without a fight is something I will not grow old with.

When I humor the possibilty of this treaty being signed I can’t help but run this through my mind:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they aree accustomed.

Over three hundred years and we have yet to break this curse; we have yet to realize that no man, no matter how wise, charming, powerful, or altruistic, has the right to take even one of our rights away.  We still put up with it, yet, as Mr. Jefferson continues:

But when the long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Could this be it?  Could the outcome of such a legislation be the end to the “long train of abuses and usurpations” that reduces us to absolute Despotism?  I have long thought that, should cap-and-trade pass, or legislation similar, that it would be the first domino leading to a revolt.  The loss of employment would be so great, the increase in taxes would be beyond what is conceivable as fair, and, I have thought, it would be when people started to really protest.  Really, strongly, protest.

It’s come again that these are the times that try men’s souls.

Published in

Post a comment