CEI's Marlo Lewis: 'The administration’s game plan, apparently, goes like this. Obama climate negotiators will argue that the greenhouse gas regulations administered by EPA, DOE, DOT, and other agencies fulfill our 1992 Rio Treaty obligation to implement climate change mitigation “policies and measures.” They then ask for similar “voluntary pledges” from other major emitters. The resulting agreement would merely update the Rio Treaty. Hence, no new vote on ratification is required. Legally, the problem with this strategy is that the Senate ratified the Rio Treaty precisely on the understanding that the executive branch would not make binding emission reduction commitments absent additional advice and consent. If the administration’s greenhouse gas regulations implement the Rio Treaty, then each should have been submitted to the Senate for a vote on ratification. None were.'
New York Times: ‘U.S. seeking climate deal that would skirt Senate’: 'Under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions...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 mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.’
Marc Morano: 'Obama is taking a page from China's government and is seeking to bypass democracy’s ‘very detrimental’ hurdles and just impose a new UN treaty on Americans'