Political Crossfire Forums

[perdidochas]

Jirwin wrote: bigstick61 wrote: First of all, a city does not have the authority to make such agreements, and the States are not authorized to allow them to do so. This is due to the fact that this is prohibited by Section 10, Article I, of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits several things from being able to be done by the States; it reads as follows:

Sec.10, Art.I, USC wrote: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws; and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.



Nothing there on a State's right to pass laws pertaining to the health of its citizens. You are trying to insert your belief on what the founders meant.

I read nothing in the article or anything else in the research I did that would violate the constitution. If you are looking at the part where it says "No state shall, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foriegn power" I still do not see how this will violate the consitution. Besides if Congress feels that California overstep it boundry they can step in and cancel the deal.

Wanna take a bet on when that will happen?

That's not the way it works. The Constitution says that states cannot enter into treaties. That means that US citizens are not obligated to follow the treaty. ONLY the Senate can approve a treaty with a foreign country. That doesn't mean that the Senate has veto power, but they are the only entity that can approve it. That treaty is not legally worth the price of paper it's written on. If I were a CA resident, I would ignore anything in the treaty, as it is patently unconstitutional.

[Jirwin]

bigstick61 wrote: Since it is a compact or agreement, it is hence unconstitutional. Since all of the authority which local and municipal governments in a State possess originates from the State, the city doesn't have the authority to enter compacts or agreements with foreign or out-of-State cities either. The compact may pertain to the health of its citizes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a compact with a foreign government. As has been seen, Congress doesn't obey the Constitution; what makes you think they'd enforce it? If a city, county, or State wishes to enter into such a compact, by law it must seek permission from Congress prior to doing so.

It is a pact by many cities around the world, not just Britain. The second article states that many cities are partaking in this to help lower their global warming admissions. How do you know that they did not get permission before doing this? We all know how well journalists, sorry scratch that, biased individuals that report their opinion leave out important details. Why was Bill Clinton there talking to a foreign power? The man has now powers to negotiate a treaty,pact or whatever for the US let alone a state.

For the record I do not believe that Global Warming is happening, I can remember a time when we were going to die of freezing to death, and an Ice Age was coming. Not to mention the data that these scientist use to determine Global Warming leaves out many years of planet cycles of weather. The hockey stick graph is a joke that many have bought into all so they can say "We care".

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jirwin wrote: bigstick61 wrote: Since it is a compact or agreement, it is hence unconstitutional. Since all of the authority which local and municipal governments in a State possess originates from the State, the city doesn't have the authority to enter compacts or agreements with foreign or out-of-State cities either. The compact may pertain to the health of its citizes, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a compact with a foreign government. As has been seen, Congress doesn't obey the Constitution; what makes you think they'd enforce it? If a city, county, or State wishes to enter into such a compact, by law it must seek permission from Congress prior to doing so.

It is a pact by many cities around the world, not just Britain. The second article states that many cities are partaking in this to help lower their global warming admissions. How do you know that they did not get permission before doing this? We all know how well journalists, sorry scratch that, biased individuals that report their opinion leave out important details. Why was Bill Clinton there talking to a foreign power? The man has now powers to negotiate a treaty,pact or whatever for the US let alone a state.

For the record I do not believe that Global Warming is happening, I can remember a time when we were going to die of freezing to death, and an Ice Age was coming. Not to mention the data that these scientist use to determine Global Warming leaves out many years of planet cycles of weather. The hockey stick graph is a joke that many have bought into all so they can say "We care".

Ah, this post explains all the rhetoric you spout, you're pure and simply an idiot.

You don't realize that BRITAIN is a Country, not a City.
That an ex-President still retains many privileges in government.
That Global Warming is a reality, regardless if you personally believe it.